faQster

What Is The Point of Racial Integration Laws?

2011-08-16T04:36:00.000-07:00

Of course, these days, the term "integration" has been updated with euphemisms like "fair housing", "social justice", etc.

That said, such laws intend to replace free choice of association with government-mandated social engineering to produce an outcome where the "correct" proportion of people in each neighborhood/school/etc. have certain superficial facial characteristics.

Specifically: People who write, support, and sue for these laws want to place black people into settings where there apparently aren't "enough" black people.

Why? In education, the values, study habits, and intelligence of white students is supposed to somehow be transmitted to black students who are presumed to be otherwise incapable of achieving "white" levels.

Now, almost universally, white people resist the imposition of these initiatives. And for that, they are called any number of nasty things: Elitist, racist, redneck, etc. But if that is so, then why would anyone want such repellent values transmitted to black students?

Answer: Maybe they don't want those values transmitted.

But then what does integration accomplish? Well, we know that it angers a lot of white people, so perhaps that is the "accomplishment". That is, the laws punish white people who do not live (or send their kids to school with) enough black people.

Living with people similar to yourself is a crime? How so?

Everyone lives with "their own", however they define that term. Just look at any demographic map for confirmation. "Diversity" is temporary, and lasts as long as it takes for demographic shifts to be complete.

Which means that everyone is guilty. But punishment is selective, and is politically based.

That is: Integration laws are unlawful.

And immoral.

And ineffective (at least insofar as achieving their ostensible goals).

Which brings us back to the original question: What is their point? Probably some combination of moral outrage, granting political favors, and good old bullying...because they can.

What Might A Harvard University 150,000-Subject Study Be Missing?

2011-07-26T07:05:00.001-07:00

They studied foods that make people gain weight.

If you want to gain weight, you should eat: Potato chips, sugar-sweetened beverages, unprocessed meats, etc.

If you want to lose weight, you should eat: Nuts, fruits, vegetables, yogurt, etc.

The study says that "adjustments were made for lifestyle". No doubt they did, but I wonder how complete those adjustments were. Look again at that list of foods. Is there no implied lifestyle associated with a diet of Lays and Dr. Pepper vs. cashews and sprouts?

How Should I Think About My Opinion, In Three Easy Steps?

2010-05-29T07:59:00.000-07:00

1. Are the facts correct? Saying that an aspirin will make your headache go away only makes sense if it is a fact that you have a headache.

2. Is the reasoning sound? Saying that an aspirin will make your headache go away because the word "aspirin" contains three vowels is not correct, even if the premise is correct.

3. Is it moral? If taking an aspirin for your headache will somehow kill one billion people, then perhaps it is time to reconsider your plan.

What is "Progressivism"?

2010-04-14T17:03:00.000-07:00

Progressivism is, like many other mass movements, tribalist, and based lies, arrogance, hatred, and hypocrisy.

1. It rests on fabricated, though emotionally appealing narratives, in order to generate support. The world is heating up. White people are racist. Recycling cardboard boxes is beneficial. America "rushed" to war in Iraq. Women earn 59% of what men earn -- and, for good measure, this non-fact is attributed to "sexism". Worse, these narratives are arrogantly stated as axioms, and the burden falls on others to "disprove" them.

2. They arrogantly know what is best for you, and will make you pay for it. Public schools. Restrictions on commerce. Penalties and prohibitions against improving your property. They also rely very heavily on the guilt-generating illusion of attempting to help the "other". In other words, "How can you possibly enjoy 'X' when someone, anyone, else is suffering with 'Y'?" And their solution to this "problem" is to take your property and control your behavior.

3. Their "causes" are never in support of anyone; their causes are instead are based on who they hate and are intended to incite. Example: Their 1990s boycotts against South Africa were ostensibly to support the black victims of the apartheid system, but they displayed an utter disregard for the routine slaughters and famines elsewhere in Africa. Conclusion: Their real "cause" was hating white people. Example: They display hypersensitivity to the "plight" of the "Palestinian" people when Israel defends itself against their attacks -- but are indifferent to the far larger number of Palestinian Arabs who are murdered by other Arabs. Conclusion: Their real "cause" is hating Jews.

4. Philosophy and logic are absent, and are instead replaced by base-instinct universal "wants". For example, they want clean air -- as if anyone else wants dirty air. They want "peace", as if anyone (at least in the western world) wants senseless wars. They want "health care", as though anyone else wants to be sick. Even their "positions" are meaningless: Discrimination against gays was fine when one of theirs (President Clinton) signed the Defense of Marriage Act. And war was fine when he authorized (without Congressional approval) the bombing of a European country (Serbia) that was no threat to the United States -- and when he launched missiles at Iraq. Similarly, their objections to the budget deficit under President Bush vanished when said deficit was to become much larger under President Obama.

5. Their support rests on dependency. They create entitlements (actually, coercive government-enforced claims against others) that leave the "beneficiaries" dependent on oppressive government. The main progressive entitlement is welfare for old people; i.e., Social Security. But after being compelled to make "contributions" to this "fund" for their entire working lives, who would want to vote for dismantling it? Who would, after being compelled to pay for Medicare for year after year, would vote to deny themselves this "benefit" when it becomes their turn to collect? What parent, after paying years of real-estate taxes, would want to abolish "free" government schools and subsidized state colleges? And so progressivism oozes along, growing, and using democracy as a weapon to further itself.

What is "Racism"?

2010-04-14T16:44:00.000-07:00

Aside from being used to demonize those with whom you disagree, so-called "racism" is a catch-all term that includes many different concepts. Here's a list that elaborates, bearing in mind that the word "race" itself is poorly defined (and, in our belief, does not exist at all).

1. Racism. This is the belief that there are innate and immutable biological differences that differentiate between all members of different races, and that these differences nearly classify races into different species. Usually, racism involves pseudo-scientific theories that reinforce the racist's beliefs.

2. Prejudice. This is pre-judging an individual based on their race, but without a basis in biological (or any other) theories. Unlike racists, they may not "know" why people of different races behave differently, and they may not care why they act differently, but they nevertheless perceive a difference -- and will act on it. It is also possible for a prejudiced person to change their assessment of individuals within a race once they get to know them. A true racist must be prejudiced, but a prejudiced person need not be a racist. Generally, this is more benign that racism.

3. Bigotry. With a foundation in racism and/or prejudice, the bigot's group is "best".

4. Visceral attraction/revulsion. This is the sense of certain aspects of races that vary in each individual, and that these aspects can be inherently good or bad. Examples include people on dating sites that exclude/include certain races because of some perceived inherent quality.

5. Utopian Racialism. This is the idea, endorsed by racists and the prejudiced, that coercive racial intervention by the state is required to achieve their idea of proper racial representation. Examples range from school and neighborhood "integration" to "affirmative action" to genocide.

6. Statistical Discrimination. This is a conscious decision to tentatively treat individuals in a certain manner because, lacking more detailed information, only group characteristics are available. It is different from prejudice because, unlike prejudice, it does not make assumptions about individuals. Instead, it says, "I do not know enough about you to make an intelligent assessment. So, for the time being, my optimal guess about you as an individual can only be based on generalizations about your group." It also says, "I prefer to (not) work/socialize with large numbers of people belonging to Group "X" because, on average, that group has been demonstrated to exhibit a certain type of behavior.

What Are Rights?

2009-11-14T09:49:00.000-08:00

Rights are very confusing. Some people say that The Constitution defines their rights, others say that their rights are defined by God, and others say that they have a right to whatever they need.

Worse, there are all sorts of different rights that academics fight over: Claim rights, privilege rights, power rights, immunity rights, etc., etc. etc.

But here's one way of looking at rights that simplify matters: There are no rights.

Instead, consider a rights-free world where all behavior is constrained by obligations. Initially, that doesn't sound like too much fun; most people don't like being burdened with obligations. But negative obligations are not burdens.

For example, the "right to free speech" can be written as "other people are obligated to not interfere with your speech". Similarly, the government's right (or, if you prefer, power) to declare war can be thought of as "the citizens are obligated to respect the decision of Congress to declare war."

The advantage of this formulation is that it is easier to determine which actions ought to be rights. For example, the "right to healthcare" sounds like a fine idea, but listen to how it sounds when it is rewritten: "Other people are obligated to provide you with healthcare." Now it doesn't sound as good.

Of course, there are still ambiguities, such as the "right to clean air". Does that mean that other people are obligated to provide you with clean air? Or does it mean that other people are obligated to not dirty your air? And that doesn't address your obligation to not interfere in other people's affairs (like operating factories) that do not directly affect you.

So, we aren't left with a simple answer to everything, but "obligations" vastly simplifies the confusing vernacular of "rights", and it also helps us better determine what sort of behaviors are permissible.

Does "Income" Have Any Meaning?

2009-10-26T18:20:00.000-07:00

You say to me, "Please hold this apple for thirty seconds and return it to me." I then take the apple, and return it to you. Did you just make "income"?

Then you say to me, "Please hold this 25-cent apple for thirty seconds, and then return either the apple or 25 cents to me." I take the apple and return 25 cents to you. Now did you just make "income"?

If you answered the first question with a "yes", then please explain how you just became richer by shuffling an apple across a table and back.

If you answered the first question with a "no" and the second question with a "yes", then please explain how replacing your property with something of equal value has made you richer.

Obviously, there is something very wrong with the idea of "income".

Point #1: What About Expenses?

Let's say you give me an apple in exchange for my tomato. What is your income? A) The "market value" of the tomato? Or B) The extra gain in your pleasure derived from trading up from an apple to a tomato?

If you answer (A), then if you pay $1000 for a box of apples and sell them at a loss for $900, your "income" is nevertheless $900. You just got $900 richer! Would you care to pay taxes on this $900?

Now let's say you spent your last four years in school, paying tuition. You graduated and now have a job. What is your income from this job? What you see in your paycheck? Or, should your "true" income reflect the cost of your tuition? And the several years of forgone income when you went to school instead of having a job? Aren't those expenses similar to the $1000 you paid for the apples?

Let's say that your job happens to pay $100K per year, and that you would not have accepted less than $75K for this job. That is, the job is "worth" $75 to you. Wouldn't your gross income therefore be $25K? Isn't that $25K similar to your gain in trading up from an apple to a tomato?

So, when we see that someone has an income of, say, $500K, what does that really mean? If we don't know how much was invested to get that $500K, how much was forgone to get that $500K, and what your "trade up" gain (i.e., your marginal utility) was to get that $500K...then we really don't know what your income is.

Point #2: Exchange results in "income" in both directions

You sell me an apple for 25 cents. You gained 25 cents and I gained an apple. Your income is 25 cents and my income is an apple. Of course, you are not really 25 cents richer -- and that's because you had to surrender an apple. And I am not richer by an apple -- because I had to surrender 25 cents. But yet, we are both richer because if either one of us did not gain, then the exchange would not have taken place. By how much are we richer? You are richer by the 25 cents less the value of that apple. And I am richer by how much I value that apple less 25 cents. And it is very very difficult to calculate those amounts.

But the main point here is that that "income" accrues to both parties. But that is rarely recognized. To say nothing, of course, of actually calculating what those two incomes actually are.

Point #3: "Income" is a pejorative term for "adding value".

You sell apples for 25 cents each. Your customers place a value on these apples of at least 25 cents each. (If they valued each apple at less than 25 cents, they would be pretty stupid to buy any.) But many customers undoubtedly place a higher value on the apples. Some of your customers (but you don't know which ones) would pay 35 cents and are getting a 10 cent discount.

That is, you are making all of your customers better off by selling those apples. Some are made a little better off, and some are made a lot better off. But they all, via a simple exchange, now posses greater value. If you sold four apples, you just increased value by one dollar. And if your four customers secretly would have paid 50 cents for each apple, then you just (unwittingly) increased value by two dollars.

So, why must people say that others "make money" instead of "create value"? Isn't the point of the transaction to create value? My guess is that envy drives people to tear down those who are productive -- and demonize them by casting them as criminals who are undeserving of their wealth.

The crime is "income" and the penalty is "redistribution". They're both meaningless terms that are part of the lexicon of leftist/statist propaganda -- and this malignant ignorance has been threaded into the popular culture so successfully that it is universally accepted as a mass virtue, to the detriment of almost everyone.

Is It OK To Confiscate Jewish Assets?

2009-05-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

Regarding Europeans complicit in The Holocaust:

The Hungarian government used the assets seized from Jews to extend its pension system and reduce inflation.

And how is this different from seizing assets of people making more than X dollars for government purposes? Are we supposed to feel revulsion at the confiscation of Jewish assets, but feel that it is proper to take the assets of affluent (i.e., productive) people? Why?

Also: Given that Jews tend to be among the most affluent people, and tend to pay higher than average taxes, could it be that the American tax system is in violation of "disparate impact" laws?

Are "Bailouts" and "Economic Stimuli" Effective?

2008-12-21T12:28:00.000-08:00

Of course not.

Unless you define "effective" as the compulsory transfer of property from a productive person to another who has not earned it.

And, unless you define "effective" as reducing overall wealth; e.g., "The economic stimulus has was effective in making people poor."

Let's examine a simple case where there are only three people in the world; you, me, and a politician. And let's say that you grow potatoes, I do nothing, and the politician does politics. One day, the politician declares that the economy of our three-person society will be better off with a "stimulus" comprised of you giving me a large bag of potatoes. The idea, according to the politician, is that I will spend my new wealth -- which will "stimulate" the economy.

OK, I then spend my new wealth on...well, your potatoes -- because that's the only thing to buy in our world. We can obviously simplify this process by declaring that some of what you produce must be given to me. This makes me richer and you poorer, with a net effect of zero. Unless, of course, you grow tired of wasting your effort to produce things for ungrateful people who choose to not work, and you cut back on potato growing. In that case, the net effect of the "stimulus" is negative. That is, I am richer -- but you grow more poor than I have grown rich.

But the politician might say that if I was loaned a few potatoes, as in a "bailout", I would then have the energy to create a potato-mashing machine that would make everyone better off. However, if my machine would make you better off, then you would voluntarily lend me potatoes so that I could make my machine. The fact that the politician is forcing you to give me potatoes ought to set off alarms about the viability of my machine plans.

The real world is obviously more complex that this example, but the principles are the same:

1. The net economic effect of taxation (i.e., forcibly transferring things from the productive to the unproductive) is, at best, zero -- and is probably negative.

2. The morality of the above point is summed up in a word called "stealing". Or, if you resist the theft, you can add the terms, "aggravated harassment", "menacing", and "assault".

3. Back to economics, encouraging people to buy things makes others worse off. If the "economic stimulus" money is used by the unproductive to buy things, then there will be fewer things for the productive to enjoy. The only way to increase affluence is though abundance, and the only way to increase abundance is through production. And if the recipients of "stimulus money" are not producing, then there will be no increase in wealth.

Now, one might say, "Hold on fella, poor people need the money!"

Misleading as that assertion is, it is also unrelated to the stated purpose of a stimulus. You can try using the "poor people" argument to defend taxes, but that is not the same as a "stimulus" argument. And so are other irrelevant arguments, like taxation to correct for externalities. Whatever the merits of those arguments, they are nevertheless unrelated to a general "economic recovery" by way of taxation.

Why, you might ask, does not the citizenry therefore reject the demands of stimuli and bailouts? Because the appeal of utopia is too attractive to decline.

What Is The Basis Of Morality?

2008-11-29T15:04:00.000-08:00

This is an update of an earlier post.

It's still incomplete, but here are ten items that can define a philosophical basis of morality:

1. Utilitarianism (The most people the most happy; e.g., democracy) vs. Individual rights

2. Free will (You have the ability to make choices) vs. Determinism (Your choices are predetermined by your biology)

3. Violence vs. Nonviolence

4. Absolutism (Truth is universal) vs. Relativism (All views are equally valid)

5. Absolutism (Truth is universal) vs. Contextualism (Truth can be dependent on context.)

6. Skepticism (All claims must be backed by proof) vs. Faith (Claims can be accepted unless proven wrong)

7. Individualism (Only individuals have rights) vs. Collectivism (Only groups of people have rights)

8. Cooperation (Agreement and collusion) vs. Defection (Disagreement and competition)

9. Liberalism (Individual responsibility) vs. Paternalism (Forced guidance by others)

10. Equality (All outcomes must be the same) vs. Equity (All opportunity must be the same)

Does Welfare Stimulate The Economy?

2008-01-25T17:45:00.000-08:00

It sure does, if you ask Congress and The President:

Deal Struck to Send Checks to Taxpayers

Most single taxpayers would get $600 and most two-wage households would get at least $1,200. The deal includes an additional amount of $300 per child. A total of 116 million taxpayers will receive checks of some size.

Why only $600? Imagine what $6,000 government checks would do.

Does anyone know what the disturbing phrase "stimulate the economy" actually means, anyway?

President Bush, saying the deal would give the economy a shot in the arm, urged quick passage.
"Our economy is structurally sound, but it is dealing with short-term disruptions in the housing market and the impact of higher energy prices," Bush said. "These challenges are slowing growth."

What, exactly, is he talking about? "Shot in the arm?" "Short-term disruptions in the housing market?" What is a "market disruption"?

Well, it appears that:

A) We might or might not have a "financial crisis", at least on paper.

B) If one group of people takes property from a second group of people, then apparently everyone benefits.

"This is a middle-class initiative to strengthen the middle class and those who aspire to be in the middle class," said Pelosi. She said the relief was targeted to "those who need the money and will spend the money."

Just make sure that the money stays out of the hands of people who do NOT need the money...

Is Wealth Acquired by Accident?

2008-01-10T18:54:00.001-08:00

Is Wealth Acquired by Luck?

It is an accident that you just happened to be born to parents with the means to provide for you. And it is also by luck that you happened to be born in a country that permits you to get a decent job. And it is also your luck that you were not born in the 15th Century. And, for that matter, it was also a winning gamble that you were not born with a debilitating birth defect.

Further, you are lucky to have inherited characteristics that have enabled you to become wealthy -- whether it's a superior physical ability or a high IQ. And, perhaps your parents used those lucky genetic traits to accumulate wealth to pass to you in the form of an inheritance.

And it could be pure luck that enables you to have the patience and diligence to perform difficult, tiresome, and tedious work -- the sort of work that might make you wealthy.

But...you are, by definition, who you are. You are no more lucky that you were born rich than you are lucky that you weren't born a cockroach. There was never any chance that you would have been born a cockroach, and there was never any chance that you would have been born anything than what you are. If you were born as someone different, then "you" would not be "you".

So, what does all this mean? What are the implications? What is the "therefore..."?

Would it therefore be correct to say that "the implication is that wealth is not really earned, and should therefore be distributed to those who are less well-off?"

If the answer is "yes, my wealth is unearned and should be given to others", then you should give all your money to cockroaches. And maybe you should give your money to plants and bacteria as well.

Or, if you prefer to give to your own species (and why would you?), then your every last "lucky" penny could be transferred to the unlucky poor around the world. You would then be brought down to their absolute poverty, and they would not notice any change in their living standards. Ten million dollars is enough to give a penny to one billion poor people.

In the end, we would have one billion and one poor people.

Unless, of course, all the lucky people in the rich countries were forced to turn over everything they have to the folks in Burundi and Malawi. That way, everyone in the world can be unlucky. Problem solved.

Is the "Collapse" of Housing Prices a Good Thing?

2007-11-24T17:58:00.000-08:00

Sure is.

If you think that lower gas prices, lower tuition prices, lower insurance premiums, etc. are a good idea, then why wouldn't lower house prices also be good? Because maybe you have a house to sell? Well, someone else has your house to buy, so that's good for that someone else.

Or perhaps it would be "good for the economy" if, say, food prices doubled because it would mean better times for supermarkets and food shippers?

Why didn't the "collapse" of the price of memory chips, and for that matter, almost all technologies, prove ruinous for the economy?

What is an "economy" anyway?

Ideally, housing prices should drop to nothing. Just as the price of everything should drop to nothing in an ideal world of unlimited abundance. Unfortunately, though, they won't -- so, if you own a house, you'll always be able to sell it for something.

And, probably for much more that what you originally paid -- notwithstanding "collapsing prices" hysteria.

Are Slavery Reparations a Smart Idea?

2007-11-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

Are slavery reparations a smart idea?

No.

1. Some people (who happened to white) enslaved others (who happened to be black). How does this lead to, generations later, other people (who happen to be black) having a claim on the money of other people (who happen to be white)?

2. Having a claim on someone's money is the same as having a claim on the work they did to produce value. That is, reparations are also slavery. Therefore, legitimizing reparations is identical to legitimizing slavery. But if slavery is legitimized, then by what basis can anyone claim a right to the slavery known as "reparations" -- other than "you have something, so I'm taking it"?

For argument's sake, let's accept the fiction that white people's wealth (including white people who recently migrated to the USA) is somehow related to the slavery of black people many generations ago -- and that black people (even if they do not have American ancestry) have a claim on all white people:

3. If blacks have a claim on whites, then it's a safe assumption that Jews have a claim on Germans. But blacks also have a claim on (white) American Jews. So, would it be efficient to simply bypass the Jews and have Germans pay American blacks directly? Or do Jews have a bigger claim on Germans than blacks have on Jews? How does one calculate this?

4. Care to sort out the Balkans to figure out who owes what to whom?

5. Exactly how does one calculate the amount to be turned over, even in relatively clear cases? It would require the rewriting of history to estimate, among many possible outcomes, what would have happened if slavery had not occurred. Would American blacks otherwise be affluent? Or would there be no American blacks, as their ancestors would have been left in Africa?

And now, let's assume that we do have the ability to develop alternative outcomes, had slavery not happened:

6. The American enslavement of blacks, as we learned above, was not unique. Throughout history, each group had its turn to enslave (and murder) people in other groups. At which point do we rewrite history? At the start of American slavery? Or when man began to walk upright? Or in 1970? The selection of a start date changes everything, as the enslaved of yesterday might have been the slave owners on the day before.

Conclusion: Any group, any injustice, and any date can be selected to justify a claim of some people on others. If you go in with your mind made up that people in some category should take things from people in a different category, then it is a simple matter to choose your favorite history to justify anything.

Can Tax Cuts be Harmful?

2007-11-02T18:23:00.000-07:00

Can Tax Cuts be Harmful?

Perhaps so.

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "Pete" du Pont points out that lower tax rates increase tax revenues. (The Heritage Foundation keeps a more permanent thesis on low taxes = more revenue here.)

So, let's accept this premise: Lower tax rates encourage production, which then raises incomes, which then increases government revenue. Win, win, win, win, win.

But what will the government do with this extra revenue? They will spend it. And they will spend it on either government employees or some other part of the parasitic sector: Expanded government agencies, new entitlements, idiotic programs, etc., etc., etc. And that will tend to shift people from productive work to the parasitic dole. Instead of being productive, they will be net consumers of resources.

Now, doesn't that bring us to a disturbing paradox; i.e., lowering taxes might actually expand the stagnating welfare state.

Does that mean that raising taxes might sometimes be beneficial precisely because it reduces government revenue?

Of course, there's some point where raising taxes, to say, 100% reduces revenue and productivity. But can a 1% tax increase be beneficial if it lowers government spending?

I don't know -- and apparently neither Pete nor The Heritage Foundation cared to look into this.

Should Cities Ban Jewish-Made Products?

2007-10-29T07:58:00.000-07:00

Should Cities Ban Jewish-Made Products?

For that matter, should they ban black-made, female-made, homosexual-made, etc. products?

Well, why not? At least one city has no problem with banning Chinese products:

Florida city proposes ban on goods from China
Mr Mazziotti said: "I don't think people have the slightest idea how much is from China. I remind people every day. Pick up that label and see where it's made. You might surprise yourself.
"Palm Bay is not going to change the world but this raises public awareness."We are losing out on this war of economics. It's free trade for them but not for us."
His idea had received considerable support from Palm Bay's largely blue collar, 107,000-strong population, said Mr Mazziotti.His hope that other parts of America will follow suit may be fulfilled.

I don't think people have the slightest idea how much is made by Jews...

Is Bush Violating The U.S. Constitution?

2007-10-28T17:13:00.000-07:00

That's not even a valid question, unless you're also upset over all the routine constitutional violations by the Federal Government in areas such as striking down local abortion laws, criminalizing drugs, implementing "affirmative action" laws, and doing whatever the Department of Education does.

None of these areas are permitted in The Constitution, so if you're happy with Roe vs. Wade, then you ought not be upset with Bush for his constitutional "violations". Unless constitutional violations are just dandy, if they're your kind of constitutional violations. Or, unless you enjoy cherry-picking "evidence" to support your propaganda...

What is "Heritage"?

2007-07-06T19:45:00.000-07:00

In everyday use, "heritage" usually refers to a culturally inherited trait that the individual receives from his parents. And so, there's American heritage, Irish heritage, Korean heritage, Jewish heritage, the poorly-defined Latino/Hispanic heritage, Black heritage, and, of course, never a White heritage.

(Does "White Heritage" sound disturbing? If so, then are the other heritages also disturbing?)

In general, it sounds simple: If your parents are of Heritage X, then you are also of Heritage X. Of course, it can get a little more complicated: If Mom is Heritage X and Dad is Heritage Y, then you can "claim" two heritages. Or maybe you would just claim one and ignore the other. (To illustrate, people with a black parent and a white parent usually seem to lean towards a black heritage.)

Now, what if your mom claims Heritages A and B, and dad claims Heritages C and D? Or worse, what if...

Mom = A, B, C, and D, and

Dad = E, F, G, and H?

Well, if any one of those eight heritages is "Native American", then you can open a casino. Otherwise, you would probably select your favorite heritage -- perhaps based on affinity with a group that has many accomplished members, or perhaps based on a group that has many members who claim victimhood, or...whatever your preference is.

Next problem: If your parents are from Germany, and you are born in Chile and then move to America, then what's your heritage? If you say "Chile", then that means that your heritage can be both inherited from your parents and formed by your residence. (And, presumably, your children can claim heritages of Germany and Chile -- and whatever heritages their other parent happened to claim.)

Can heritages extend beyond nationalities? Can one also have an Islamic heritage? Or a gay heritage? If so, that means that heritages can be formed by:

A) Where your parents were born
B) Where you are born
C) Your parent's beliefs
D) Your beliefs
E) Your parent's lifestyle
F) Your lifestyle

Pick and choose any or all?

And when one considers that heritages can grow exponentially from one generation to the next (by a power of 2) , then that's a lot of heritages to be burdened with.

Another problem: Adoptions. If a baby is adopted by a Jewish family, then can the baby claim a Jewish heritage? If that same baby is discovered to have Catholic genetic parents, can the baby also claim a Catholic heritage? Can a Chinese baby adopted into an Irish family also claim a Chinese heritage? If "yes", then on what basis? Genetics? That would imply that cultural traits are transmitted genetically.

And besides, how could a baby possibly have any heritage (let alone a religious heritage) when the only things it can understand are eating, eliminating, and screaming?

In a world of constant migration and "intermarriage", the idea of heritage is obsolete, as it is just optional membership in tribe tribe of your choosing. And in a period of relative enlightenment and education, heritage demands that individual thought and behavior be subordinate to irrelevant tribal rituals. And in a world that recognizes individual accomplishment, heritage assigns credit and blame based on other people in "your" group.

And in a powerful state, heritages are used to coercively take (and kill) for the benefit of other heritages.

Heritage seems like a pretty bad idea.

Can Slavery Be A Good Thing?

2007-07-04T18:49:00.000-07:00

Yes it can.

In fact, when slavery is beneficial, it goes by the term "taxes." Of course, all taxes are harmful in some way, but they might be the best option in certain cases, such as with the provision of public goods like defense, pollution control devices, etc. In theory, private armies and police forces might be a pretty good idea, but we don't know for sure -- as empirical evidence is lacking.

Regardless, taxes are still slavery. How so? Well, it's easier to see in a barter system. Say that your job is trading apples. And whenever you trade two apples for other items, a bully comes along and forces you (with threats of violence) to give one apple to him without getting anything in exchange. Now, the bully can eat the apple or give it to someone else, but regardless, he forced you to produce an apple and hand it over. He forced you to work for his benefit. That is slavery.

If it happens that he gives your apple to someone who is not as affluent as you, then you are a slave who is indirectly working for a less-affluent master. And yet, this bothers relatively few people. In fact, the tangible benefits of slavery are often subordinate to the high morality of this sort of slavery. Redistributing apples is considered a valuable end in itself.

Which makes on wonder: Why does anyone object to slavery?

Once again, the answer has nothing to do with "freedom" or "rights" or any similar lofty abstraction. Instead, it once again comes down to envy. Slavery is considered bad if the slave masters are more affluent than the slaves -- but slavery is considered highly moral when the slave masters are less affluent than the slaves.

To summarize: Slavery can be a good thing under some circumstances -- and there will be no objection if it feeds into envy as well. Which, among other things, explains why modern-day slavery (taxation) is as popular as it is.

Is Suburban Sprawl Bad?

2007-05-30T17:04:00.000-07:00

First, we need to remove the biases from this question:

1. The phrase "suburban sprawl" is the opposite of "urban suffocation" -- yet we rarely hear people ask, "Is urban suffocation bad?"

2. This question assumes a negative starting point; why not ask: "Is suburban freedom good?"

So, a more neutral phrasing would be: "What is the optimal population density?"

And most people would reply to the effect of "The optimal population density is where I am living now." No surprise there, considering that people are free to live where they please, and population density is a factor they use to select a place to live.

In other words, an equivalent question would be: "Is strawberry a bad flavor?" Or: "Is blue a bad color?" It all depends on who you ask; to each his own.

However, there are people who claim that population densities have negative externalities; i.e., my choice to live in a low-density area makes your life more miserable. Or, for that matter, my decision to live in a high-density area makes your life more miserable. Specifically: If everyone else likes low densities, then there won't be a sufficiently large demand to produce your preferred high density. And if everyone like high densities, then there won't be sufficient demand to produce low-density areas.

If everyone else likes strawberry ice cream, then there won't be a sufficiently large demand to produce your mustard ice cream.

People often use rationalizations to support mandated densities. Generally speaking, everyone feels that any added density to their neighborhood is a bad thing. And so, cities cap urban development to "preserve the character of neighborhoods". And suburbs cap development to keep out the riffraff. But if the population grows, and the law prohibits increases in existing areas, then the only place to build will be on undeveloped land further from the core. Hence, "sprawl". And, it seems like a good thing for most residents, as sprawl limits the population growth in their areas.

And so, we come to the final objection, which is: People who come to live in new "sprawling" areas really ought to live in a manner prescribed by people who live in the existing areas. Or, at a minimum, the newcomers should not live in densities that are less than existing densities elsewhere. Why? Supposedly, low densities are less efficient that high densities, and the new space hogs will use more fuel. Of course, they might also live in new fuel-efficient homes. Or they might spend less time in highway congestion (assuming that enough highways are built). Or, maybe they will have fewer children -- and therefore be less of a drain on "our resources". Or maybe their fewer children will not be enough to produce things for the rest of us.

Or maybe this or maybe that.

None of which answers the original question: What is the optimal population density? The answer is mostly likely parallel to: What is the optimal ice cream flavor?

What is The Difference Between Buyers and Sellers?

2007-05-14T19:08:00.001-07:00

Almost none.

To illustrate, consider barter: If I give you a potato in exchange for an orange, then who is the buyer and who is the seller? Now, if I gave you a potato in exchange for a slip of paper (or a credit card number) promising an orange next week, then, in the strictest sense, I am the seller and you are the buyer because I gave you a potato in exchange for an IOU; i.e., in exchange for money.

So, this simple example shows that there are two minor differences between sellers and buyers:

1. If a potato is exchanged for an IOU then it is "sold" by me and "bought" by you -- even though this could also be thought of as bartering the potato for an IOU, or bartering for money.

2. The terms "bought" and "sold" help define the direction of the good (and its reverse; the direction of the money).

(As an aside, this also related to gambling. If we exchange the potato and the orange today, we are betting that the relative value each item will not increase tomorrow.)

In the popular culture, however, buying and selling usually have false definitions. Instead of one being seen as the mirror of the other, the buyer is usually a selfless and relatively powerless consumer battling against a "greedy" seller who can dictate terms at will.

In fact, there are three categories of buyer to seller arrangements:

1. Many-to-One. This refers to many individual buyers trading with a handful of sellers. Generally, this includes consumers trading with airlines, insurance companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, auto dealers, etc., etc., etc. In the popular culture, this category is often thought of as the only buyer/seller relationship.

2. One-to-Many. This is where many sellers trade with a few buyers. The best examples are companies that derive most of their sales from very few customers, such as Proctor & Gamble with Wal-Mart, franchisees and and franchisers, ComAir with Delta Airlines, Tyson Chicken and McDonald's, etc.

3. Many-to-Many: Lots of sellers and lots of buyers. eBay is probably the best example, although real estate and used cars are also fairly good examples.

4. One-to-One. This is where two separate entities work almost exclusively with each other. It's not common, but labor unions come to mind. Companies buy labor from a single union local, and the union local sells labor to that single company (although its influence is usually industry-wide).

For some reason, popular sympathies are neutral in Examples (2) and (3) -- but lean heavily towards the buyer in Example (1) and the seller in Example (4).

For example, in (1), consumer boycotts against specific companies are often considered appropriate, but company boycotts against specific consumers are never considered appropriate -- and are in fact illegal. The only exception to this, when the rules are actually reversed, is where the seller has a total monopoly; i.e., the seller is the government. In that case, boycotts against the seller are extremely illegal (just ask the IRS) and boycotts against individual buyers are the law ("affirmative action" is a good example of a single-seller government might boycott whites, males, etc. once a quota is reached).

Objectively, though, the differences that exist between any traders are related to market conditions (e.g., scarcity, preferences, alternatives, etc.) and have nothing to do with who the "buyer" and who the "seller" is. But when politicians speak to the "many", they use the language that the "many" understand; i.e., the speak to those in Example (1), where there are a lot of people in the "many", and nothing unites them better than inciting them against a common enemy -- and an "enemy" that is very easy to identify.

Is Racial Profiling Morally Acceptable at Airports?

2007-05-10T19:26:00.000-07:00

If anything, "racial profiling" is morally required at airports.

Of course, there are a couple of caveats here:

1. Since "race" is just a cultural abstraction, what we really mean is that it profiling on appearances should be required.

2. "Profiling" does not mean "arresting" or "punishing" or "guilty!" or any other emotionally-charged term that is intended to make a point by lies and/or hyperbole.

3. "Profiling" refers to "give extra scrutiny".

All inspected people at airports fall into one of four categories:

1. True Positives. These are people who are correctly deemed as being dangerous, and are therefore kept from flying. All security precautions, machinery, and procedures are intended to catch these people -- but have any true positives actually been caught? If they were, they were not publicized .

2. True Negatives. These are people like you (I hope), me, and almost everyone else: Innocent and are deemed as innocent. Walk through the metal detector, and go to your gate.

3. False Positives: These are people who are flagged as being suspicious, but are really innocent. They are (we are told) flagged because of their suspicious behavior; e.g., buying a one-way ticket with cash and no bags, for instance. Theoretically, this group also includes the "flying imams" of Minneapolis, whose behavior was consistent with terrorism, but actually posed no threat.

4. False Negatives: People who clear security and then crash planes into skyscrapers; Mohammed Atta is a famous false negative.

The problems with airport security and profiling are related to Categories (3) and (4). Specifically, false positives and false negatives are errors that, in an ideal world, would be zero. That is, in our perfectly-calibtrated world, only Categories (1) and (2) would exist.

The trouble is that (3) and (4) cannot be eliminated together; in fact, when one category is reduced, the other will need to increase. Specifically, the best way to eliminate (3) is to clear everyone through security. Put another way, if no one is stopped, then no innocent people will be stopped.

And the best way to eliminate (4) is to stop everyone. If every last passenger is carefully screened, then we know (by definition) that bombers and hijackers will be screened, too.

However, neither of the above is practical. It isn't practical to automatically clear or screen everyone (unless passengers would be willing to pay much more for air travel, in both time and money).

Therefore, a balance has to be found between minimizing Errors (3) and (4). But no matter which balance is found there will be problems: Either too many innocent people will be screened or not enough bombers and hijackers will be screened. So, the best approach is to minimize Error (4) to the point where any additional additional reduction would create a disproportionate rise in Error (3). That is, a 1% error rate in allowing hijackers on planes might be better than a 0.9% error rate if that means screwing up the system but good.

So...how do we decrease the Error (4) rate without making thousands of travelers even more upset over airport delays? The answer (as you might have probably guessed) is to pre-screen people based on their likelihood of trying to blow up a plane. Put another way, at a given level of "passenger inconvenience", the probability of a disaster is lessened by profiling. Or, put yet another way, if profiling were to be discontinued, one of the error rates will need to go up: Either all passengers will have to go through more arduous security delays (without any added security), or more planes will be blown up. Take your pick.

The people in Category (3) are apparently less concerned about either of the above choices than they are about being singled out as a false positive. They say: "Profiling should cease, and other people should be singled out, too." Never mind that they will still be singled out -- what matters to them is that they will no longer need to feel envy of people in other groups that are waved through. That is, to lessen their sense of envy, everyone else must also be inconvenienced and/or more planes must crash. Adding huge costs to flying to ameliorate envy: Is that defensible? Sacrificing lives to ameliorate envy: Is that the moral solution?

Incidentally, profiling does not require that everyone from one group (say, people in Islamic garb) be singled out to the exclusion of everyone else. In fact, a (non-random) mix of checks would be better; if "looking Muslim" is the only way to get stopped, then hijackers would learn that they can get a free pass onto a plane by not "looking Muslim" -- as they did on 9/11. A probabilistic approach would be best; a completely random screening procedure, as stated above, is not only dangerous, but also ridiculous.

Why Do People Tell Jokes?

2007-05-07T18:34:00.000-07:00

First, let's define "joke" as not being a one-liner, or a brief witticism. Instead, it's referring to the interminable story that places an enormous demand on the audience's patience in exchange for a "punchline" that is intended to evoke laughter. It's debatable whether anyone really enjoys being at the receiving end of this treatment, unless they wanted to acquire a new joke to repeat to others.

There are several reasons why people find jokes annoying:

1. They are often not funny.

2. It is hard to know when the joke ends, requiring the listener to provide interim false chuckles when he thinks the joke might be ending.

3. Even if the punchlines are funny, they are rarely worth waiting for.

4. They demand that you pay attention to someone who you would otherwise be ignoring.

So, why do people tell jokes?

1. To feel acceptance by others, as displayed by the audience's laughter -- although their laughter (and occasional clapping) might just be a display of relief that the joke has mercifully ended.

2. To compete (or, rarely, to exact revenge) against others who might also be telling jokes.

3. To affirm their membership in the "guy's club"; women never tell jokes. And the louder the laugh, the more you are in the club.

4. To become the center of attention without any effort beyond repeating things.

5. To break the silence at social functions; i.e., some people prefer jokes to staring quietly at the floor.

Some other time, we will need to explore why women don't tell jokes.

How Do Labor Unions Work? What Benefits do They Bring?

2007-05-03T19:34:00.000-07:00

Labor unions exist to gain above-market benefits by eliminating competition through coercion. Without unions, any employer who is unsatisfied with employee demands can simply hire replacement workers who are willing to work for less.

Union coercion can either be through formal laws ("closed shops", "prevailing wage laws", etc.) or through informal intimidation (pickets, violence against "scabs", threats to shut down other businesses, etc.) -- but coercion is nevertheless necessary because there are many people who are very willing to work for much less than union wages.

The monopoly-power status of unions enables them to compel employers to pay their members more than they would have otherwise. That is, there's a transfer of wealth from the employers to the employees. This makes for good populist rhetoric, but no one outside the union benefits -- and many people are harmed. Specifically, unions do not create affluence; affluence can only be created by abundance -- and unions do not create abundance. In fact, the reduction in competition reduces abundance and therefore makes everyone outside the union worse off.

Relatively speaking, even union members derive little benefit from unions. This is because unions "re-divide" the wealth pie without making it bigger, and most of our affluent living standards come from the size of the pie, and not how the pieces are distributed. For example, the luxuries that we (including union members) take for granted were all generated outside of unions; in fact, union work rules interfere with such progress. Specifically, central heating, air-conditioning, electricity, plumbing, cell phones, medicines, computers, etc., etc., etc. are the products of innovation and individual initiative, and not of unionized labor forces. And the areas which are union-dominated, such as American-made automobiles, have lower quality than the innovative non-union competition.

Internationally, the recent rise in living standards in countries such as Korea, China, and Singapore was created by free trade -- which is one of the main things that unions try to stop.

But their public-relations is generally very effective. They portray themselves as fighting for the every-man, but the every-man has benefited mostly by the absence of unions, and not their grabbing of a bigger piece of the pie.

Why Do People Help Complete Strangers?

2007-04-29T18:48:00.000-07:00

Would you help someone who was just hit by a car? Someone who you do not know, and will never see again? Of course you would (I hope). But why?

It's not because it's the "right thing to do" because that answer only changes the phrasing the question; i.e., Why is helping someone the right thing to do?

But here are some possible reasons:

A) Conscious reciprocity. Some people like the gratification of hearing a big "thank you"; it makes them feel good. This implies that the motivation to help was not altruism, but instead was a selfish desire for gratification. Or, more cynically, one might help a stranger for a monetary award, or even for an outside chance of having sex. (If that sounds a bit "harsh", then consider who would get more assistance: An attractive young woman or a fat middle-aged man.) Nevertheless, the desire for reciprocity "works" in that the helper and the victim both come out ahead compare to an identical situation where the helper would otherwise keep walking.

B) Irrational justifications. Many people are self-deluded into believing things that don't hold up well to logic. An example might be: "If I were hit by a car, I would want someone to help me!" Though that sentiment might be true, the logic doesn't work; i.e., helping a complete stranger has no bearing on whether a different complete stranger will help you someday. Similarly, some people might think, "That could be my parent/child!" But it isn't your parent or child -- and your helping them does not increase the chances that your relatives will be similarly helped someday. Still, the justifications, though not rational, help everyone.

C) Social or religious pressures. This works to the extent that your society or religion does not instruct you to instead kick the victim -- or worse, run your car over him to begin with.

D) No idea why; "I just did it". This does away with all reasoning and assumes an adaptive biological trait that somehow increases procreation among those who help others -- which in turn increases this trait's frequency in the population. That is: You help others because an ancestor with this trait, a long time ago, had lots of children. (The assistance-for-sex idea might seem a bit more plausible now...)

Two more things to note:

1. None of the above reasons are related to altruism -- or at least of the moral posturing variety. ("I am selflessly sacrificing so that someone else might have a better life etc., etc., etc.)

2. It was an easy example; the helper's cost was minimal, and the victim's benefit was great. There's a big difference between people who, on the scene, would be willing to punch "911" on their cell phones -- and people who make anonymous kidney donations. The real altruists are on that kidney donation line.

Is "Equal Pay" a Good Idea?

2007-04-27T18:55:00.000-07:00

No, it is a terrible idea.

"Equal Pay" goes by other names, such as "Comparable Worth", and is intended to remedy the dubious claim that men earn more than women. And in the interest of understanding why it is such a bad idea from an economic perspective, we'll ignore several other issues:

1. It has not been shown that, when all other variables are held constant, women make less than men.

2. The phrasing "equal pay" is loaded; opposition to it implies that you are opposed to equal rights.

3. It is a tribal concept, designed to instill resentment against the male "tribe". Otherwise, it would be called "More Pay", as opposed to the envy-laden "Equal Pay".

4. Enforcement would require new armies of bureaucrats to police the private affairs of others.

So, let's assume that, on average, women really do earn less than same-age, same-skilled, same-experienced, and same-educated men -- and are also equally productive at identical jobs with the same employer under identical conditions -- and that this can be ascertained by objective and politically-neutral parties without any interest in the outcome.

Note, by the way, the phrase "on average" in that sentence. That implies that, on balance, women earn less than men -- which means that there are times when women might make more than men. So, in order to ignore the idea of men also being entitled to "equal pay", then we need to further assume that women universally make less than men under the above conditions. That is, assume that the highest-paid woman never makes more than the lowest-paid man.

One would think that under these conditions, it would be prudent to investigate why women make less than men before passing legislation to "fix" the problem. Or, perhaps it is simpler to just assume the most inflammatory reason and make that the basis of your legislation. In this case, that assumption would be, "Men discriminate against women."

OK, there are two situations where women might be discriminated against:

1. Women are less valuable/productive/skilled than men for some jobs, and this is reflected in their pay.

2. Women are NOT less valuable than men, but employers gratuitously pay male employees more for some reason.

By the process of elimination, Item #1 seems much more plausible. Alternative #2 appears rather unfounded, and would be illustrated by an employer paying everyone $100, and then declaring, "To hell with the bottom line. I'm going to give each male employee an extra $50 simply because they're male." Or, it's the equivalent of an auto salesman telling a male customer, "The price of the car is $20K, but since you're a guy, I'll hand over $2K of my profits, and sell it to you for $18K."

Or, it would require a mass conspiracy among every employer to "underpay" women with the understanding that no other employers will attempt to offer them more; all employers agree to ignore the temptation of higher profits for the sake of underpaying women.

And so, we are left with Item #1, which implies that employers are "guilty" of paying men and women what they are worth -- and that the solution is to force them to pay women more than what they are worth. This is where commerce ends and welfare begins. And it is where employers will follow the laws of supply and demand: If the price of labor is forced higher than its equilibrium, then the quantity demanded will decline. In other words, "equal pay" would result in female unemployment.

There are only two ways to avoid this resulting female unemployment:

1. Employers can ignore the spirit of the law by cutting back elsewhere; e.g., women's benefits, a comfortable working environment, etc.

2. Another layer of legislation can be added that would require employers to not only pay women the government-approved rate, but also compel them to hire women. That is, we could have a government-directed workplace, where employers are told who to hire and how much to pay them. This would result in a decline in affluence and personal freedom for everyone, male and female -- and is a little too close to fascism for, we would hope, most people to be comfortable with.

"Equal Pay" is a bad solution to a problem that does not exist.

What Good is Envy?

2007-04-25T14:26:00.001-07:00

Envy is a good example of a biologically-driven impulse that, on average, benefits us all -- although it might hurt the person who suffers from it.

Basically, envy provides a motivation for people to produce things that indirectly benefit others.

For example:

- If I am envious of your baseball skills, I might practice to become a better ballplayer -- and thereby produce more entertainment for baseball fans.

- If I am envious of your status, I might attempt political maneuverings to become more popular -- and thereby do favors for others.

- If I am envious of your money, I might work harder to make more money -- and thereby benefit the recipients of my efforts.

- If I (with "I" being used only in the most abstract sense) am envious of your girlfriend, I might try harder to be more appealing to her -- and thereby make her happier.

That fourth example is probably the main reason why envy is such a common trait. Those people who acted on their sexual envies were more likely, over the long term, to produce more offspring -- who will inherit the "envy gene". And they will then compete against each other to produce even more envious offspring. Given the direct connection between sexual jealousy and procreation, it is little wonder that sexual jealousy is the most potent of all envies -- if not all emotions.

Also note that the first three examples are probably outgrowths of sexual jealousy; i.e., people (especially men) who are athletic and/or powerful and/or rich are highly demanded by the other gender for procreation. That is, men can satisfy their sexual envy by first working on their other envies. And along the way, third parties benefit.

Of course, envy is not entirely wonderful. For starters, it induces people to expend much effort for relatively little tangible gain. Even with no potential mates to impress, the envy impulse might still function senselessly. ("He worked how many hours to own the most expensive car on the block?") And, of course, acting on envy can alienate people, can cause your friends to disappear, and even get you killed. (Perhaps many fatal conflicts over a female were not, in hindsight, really worth it?) And many people whose envy drives them to seek power and money do so by illegitimate means -- through lying, cheating, stealing, threatening, and killing.

In short, it is very unproductive to feel sick over the fact that a co-worker won Lotto -- but maybe that impulse, someday, will do some good for someone else.

How Can We Get More Banks in Poor Neighborhoods?

2007-04-23T16:27:00.000-07:00

A new report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition finds that most of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States have markedly lower numbers of bank branches in working class and minority communities than in the upper class and white neighborhoods.

Setting aside the curious vernacular ("working class" and "minority"), the NCRC is concerned that there are neighborhoods without enough banks, and is proposing that existing banks be forced to open branches in undesirable locations by way of the Federal Reserve Board's "Community Reinvestment Act".

But instead of using force, here are two more palatable ways of bringing more banks to these neighborhoods:

- The NCRC, instead of lobbying for government controls, can open a bank themselves.

- The NCRC can explore reasons why banks, and many other merchants, are reluctant to locate in these neighborhoods. Or, maybe the NCRC can just ask themselves: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the NCRC chose to locate in census tract 1303 (West Roxbury, MA) that is 92.5% white.

Of course, there can be many reasons why there might be fewer banks in these neighborhooods. Perhaps the residents prefer to do their banking in other neighborhoods -- like where they work. Or perhaps there are regulations, like usury laws, that make banking unprofitable in these areas. Or perhaps these areas are better served by pawn shops and check-cashing stores than they are by "traditional" banking services.

And this is ignoring the fact that these neighborhoods have many banks. Go to Yahoo Maps, pick the poorest area you can think of, and then "browse by category", "community services", "banks". Look at the South Side of Chicago, and you will find over 300 banks. Apparently, 300 is not enough. What is enough? Probably no number is enough, as that would give the NCRC nothing to do.

And, apparently, it would give celebrity politicians one less lobbying group to please, as well.

Does Determinism Have Internal Contradictions?

2007-04-21T19:41:00.000-07:00

Yes, it has a major one.

If we accept the premise of determinism that everything has a cause, then it follows that every cause has a cause. That is, if the cause of my buying a green shirt instead of a yellow shirt is a very complex "equation" that uses biological inputs to return "green shirt", then what was the cause of those biological inputs? My parents genes? And what was the cause of that? And what was the prior preceding cause. And then the cause before that, and the cause before that, ad infinitum.

To continue in Latin, we end up with the reductio ad absurdum conclusion that we can never find the "real" cause because there must always be a prior cause. In other words, if everything has a cause, then nothing has a cause.

But in practice, a determinist will generally stop at a (highly speculative) biological level as the "real" cause. That seems like an arbitrary point in the cause-and-effect process, though. Why not choose an observable point in the process; e.g., the point at which you might say, "I can buy green or yellow -- and though it hardly matters to me, I will choose the green shirt."

Can Mass Murderers be Stopped?

2007-04-20T14:36:00.000-07:00

Yes.

But NOT by these methods:

1. Gun control. Anyone who is risking life imprisonment, the death penalty -- or ending it all with suicide -- will probably not be deterred by the penalties of gun control legislation. As with drugs, guns will always be easy for criminals to obtain.

2. Better defenses; e.g., metal detectors, communications, etc. The most effectively fortified building will only shift the murderer's location to another venue, and for every potential victim who runs to safety, another (who was outran) will be killed. By analogy, a well-guarded home will not stop burglaries; at most, it will shift the burglaries to less-guarded homes.

3. Postmortem candlelight vigils.

Someone who is really determined to kill other people will find a way, and therefore must be "neutralized" beforehand in order to be stopped.

An objection to this sort of "neutralization" (i.e., jailed, killed, or physically incapacitated) is that it requires that punishment precede the execution of the crime. Whether or not this is a sound principal, such laws are enforced all the time -- from the seemingly useful laws against drunk drivers who haven't run over anyone yet -- to the seemingly useless drug prohibition laws. So, the question is: Under what conditions can potential murderers be stopped before they kill people?

It comes down to balancing the two types of error:

1. Mistakenly killing someone who fits the mass-murderer "profile" who in fact would not have done so.

2. Mistakenly NOT killing someone before they murder many people.

Criminal laws are designed to absolutely prevent Type (1) error, which results in the occasional occurrence of Type (2) errors. There's no good way of determining whether this approach lowers the "body count" (we have no idea how many innocent people would be killed by the government's preventive neutralization schemes) -- and besides, many people on principal would not want their governments to have the power to make such decisions.

[There is a big exception to this: The military, in war, will give much less benefit of the doubt to the enemy, and therefore kills first -- even at the expense of innocent civilians ("collateral damage"), and their own members ("friendly fire").]

A compromise solution is an armed citizenry that can restrain (or preferably, "neutralize") the murderer after the murders (or the immediate threats of murder) begin. An objection to this is that if, say, every college student had a gun, then there would be an increase in deaths -- presumably in the spontaneous "manslaughter" category. This seems like it should be of little concern, though, for two reasons:

1. Gun ownership could still be restricted to those who demonstrate firearms competence; people who cannot be trusted with weapons would be denied a permit. (Yes, criminals would have guns anyway. But this would at least keep guns away from incompetent law-abiding people.)

2. You don't need a gun to kill someone. A bat, a pipe, or even a pen will do. For that matter, a big person can kill a small person without any weapons. Has this been a problem on college campuses and office parks? The most weaponized institutions next to police stations are hospitals and doctor's offices; poison away, if you are a psychopath so inclined. But has this been a problem? Then why would armed teachers, or office managers, or college students, present a problem?

Reason #2, though, is a bit troublesome. This is because there is a weapon that is more deadly than any gun, easier to aim, easier to operate, perfectly legal, and ubiquitous: The automobile. Almost everyone "carries" an automobile. Is it used for murder? Rarely. Is it used in manslaughter? That depends on your perspective (absolute deaths vs. the percentage of the population), but it is certainly not zero. However, we feel that the benefits of automobiles are worth the costs.

Back to guns: Manslaughters would probably increase by a negligible amount with widespread gun ownership, but (the rare) mass murders would decline. But another benefit of widespread gun ownership would be a decline in burglaries and everyday muggings.

It all comes down to A) The comparative body counts, B) Which, on an emotional level, scares you more: Premeditated murders, burglaries, & muggings, or the negligence and impulsiveness of manslaughter, and C) Do the ends of less violence justify the means of obtaining it?

Do Trial Lawyers Have Morals?

2007-04-18T17:08:00.000-07:00

The ones who only take cases of innocent clients might have morals; the others do not.

The purpose of a trial-by-jury is to protect the innocent, and not to protect the guilty. So, if someone is guilty (of an unambiguous crime like rape or murder), and their lawyer knows it, then a moral lawyer ought to refuse to take the case. Of course, lawyers need to earn money, which explains why they defend (and lie to defend) the guilty. But when lawyers knowingly attempt to persuade juries to free violent criminals, then it can hardly be considered "moral" if the reason is to make money.

Similarly, when trial lawyers attempt to have the courts punish innocent parties (like, say, McDonalds for allegedly making people fat, or drug companies for producing drugs with negligible side effects), then they are also without any morals.

The fact that lawyers often become very affluent by winning these cases does not make them less moral. If they did it "pro bono", they would be no better. In fact, it's the legal system itself that provides the incentives for unscrupulous lawyers to behave in such a depraved way. But still, lawyers do have the ability to turn down cases; they can make choices as well as anyone else.

What is "Third-Party Victimhood"?

2007-04-16T20:38:00.000-07:00

Third-Party Victimhood was eloquently defined by H.L. Mencken:

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of improving or saving X, A is a scoundrel."

And yet, time and again, "A" is viewed as a paragon of moral virtue, altruistically making sacrifices for the benefit of others.

The most obvious example of this behavior is among politicians, who continuously tax productive people for the sake of providing welfare to others. It is often couched in altruistic terms, such as "helping the...

- Farmers
- Loggers
- Steel makers
- Minorities
- Women
- Single mothers
- Senior citizens
- Children
- Working people
- Unemployed
- Underclass
- Middle class
- Veterans
- Union members
- Disabled
- Consumers
- Immigrants
- Uninsured
- Borrowers
- People who are denied loans
- Descendants of slaves
- College students
- High school dropouts
- Environmentalists
- Family businesses
- Rural families
- Home owners
- Apartment renters
- Spanish-speaking population
- People with Spanish surnames
- Native Americans
- Motorists
- People who use public transportation
- People who fly
- Cancer victims
- AIDS victims
- Air pollution victims
- Obese
- Malnourished
- Museum visitors
- Public television viewers
- Public radio listeners
- Churches
- Wildlife enthusiasts

...and on and on and on...and ironically enough, they even promise to somehow "help the taxpayer".

From the above list, it's pretty clear that almost everyone falls into at least one (and often more) of those categories -- which implies that the money is simply being shuffled from some people to others, and then to others, and then back again to yet others, until the tax-and-welfare web is so complex that it is hard to determine who exactly is harmed the most. But to some extent, all are harmed because of the associated taxation. All, that is, except for those who propose and administer these schemes, who are given their "cut" along the way.

Now, let's take one of those groups as an example -- say, museum visitors -- and compare the following TV ads:

1. Politician: "For the sake of art, and for the sake of our children, we must continue to increase funding to museums."

2. Typical affluent museum visitor: "For my sake, we must raise your taxes."

Of course, these statements are functionally equivalent; they are demands to take money from B and give it to X. But when A makes the demand, it appears selfless and moral -- and when X makes the demand, it appears selfish and inappropriate. But they are the same -- except that when X asks directly, at least middleman A does not get a cut.

Why is this such an effective tactic? Probably because A appears to be concerned about X (and we like it when someone shows concern) and X has the dignity to not ask (or demand) your money.

It is something to think about the next time...

- A politician makes a speech.
- A "community activist" makes a demand.
- A coworker asks for a "contribution" for someone else's retirement, departure, birthday, etc.
- An "advocate" for a cause asks for money on the street.

...and so forth.

Why Do Physicians Make So Much Money?

2007-04-14T19:52:00.000-07:00

For that matter, why does anyone make as much as they make?

For starters, here are some things that, in isolation, do not affect what people make:

Effort and Hard Work

Painting your house with a toothbrush requires lots of effort, but any painter who proposes such a method will not make much money.

Skills

Good musicians, artists, and jugglers are highly-skilled; most need day jobs.

High Costs

You cannot simply "pass costs onto the customer"; most often, high costs will ruin your business.

Greed

Setting aside the ambiguous definition of this term, the desire for money does not make one rich (though it would be nice if it could).

***

Compensation for services is based on:

- Value created for others

- Opportunity costs

- The scarcity of the service

- The demand for the service

- The seller's competition

1. Value Added

How much value is added during brain surgery? How can you tell? How much value is added during a check-up? Which would you rather do without: A) A check-up for five years, or ) Water for two days? Should water cost more than a doctor's visit? A physician can save your life, but most often, you see a physician for routine advice for relatively minor problems. Regardless, whether or not you are a physician, if you don't add value, then you will make no money. (At least, you won't make it honestly.)

2. Opportunity Costs

This is just what you are forgoing when you see the doctor. If you only pay an insurance co-payment, then the opportunity cost of seeing a specialist is perhaps a meal for two at a low-end restaurant. But without insurance, you might prefer to spend some of that medical money on other things; maybe you would wait a little longer for that mysterious pain to go away, or for that chronic inflammation to settle down -- and you would certainly be more inclined to think twice about that "follow-up visit in two weeks". But since most people have insurance, they are inclined to see physicians more often than they otherwise would -- and do not pay much attention to what the doctor is charging.

3. Scarcity

Only a certified physician (and not nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, etc.) can prescribe medication and treat patients; this limits the number of practitioners who can offer medical services. And the total number of physicians is controlled by state medical boards (by limiting the number of medical schools and their enrollment), which also drives the supply of doctors down.

4. Demand

All people get sick, and they all want to get better. The demand for medicine is very inelastic.

5. Sellers Competition

Doctors rarely compete on price because the prices are set for them by insurance companies and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And besides, there is no incentive to compete, as the above factors (value adding, low opportunity costs, scarcity, and extra demand) give them a steady supply of customers.

Once the above five items are accounted for, their hard work, skills, and ambition might -- on the margin -- make a difference between being affluent and being very affluent.

In summary, it appears that physicians are affluent because of a combination of natural conditions (they are highly skilled and ambitious people who provide value-added services for a highly demanded product) and artificial restrictions created by the government (insurance schemes and medical school quotas). In order to determine how much of their wealth is generated by natural conditions, the artificial restrictions would need to be removed -- and that is not about to happen.

How Can We Fix The Ostrich-Meat Crisis?

2007-04-12T15:29:00.000-07:00

The year: 2020.

The crisis: A growing taste for ostrich meat has produced a crisis.

The problem was discovered when an astute journalist realized that there wasn't enough ostrich meat being produced to feed everyone. Soon, the populace became distraught and their elected representatives promised to fix the problem.

One candidate for office proposed a universal insurance scheme. "It is unacceptable there are people who cannot afford ostrich meat. I therefore demand universal taxpayer-funded ostrich-meat insurance to make ostrich meat available to everyone! And everyone would get the finest cuts, too!"

Another candidate felt that there were "Two Americas: One that ate ostrich meat, and one that did not." He said that if those who ate ostrich meat simply ate less, then there would be enough left over for everyone else.

And yet another "policy-wonk" candidate noted that "As Americans are eating more and more ostrich meat, our nation is spending more than ever on ostrich meat! This is wrong!"

In the universities, professors debated the merits of different ostrich-meat plans: Should it be declared free for all? Should a voucher program be instituted? Should employers supplement employee benefits with free ostrich meat? Should we adopt the Swedish Ostrich Model?

It was the most perplexing problem: Many people wanted ostrich meat, but it was too expensive!

Soon Congress consulted the ultimate experts on ostrich-meat production, The American Ostrich Meat Association (AOMA), which said that the solutions were A) Ostrich-meat consumers should have more government money to spend on ostrich meat, and B) No changes should be made to the number of ostrich farmers, and C) More government money was needed to pay for university grants to study the problem. The professors really liked Item C.

Limited supply and heavy demand resulted in a perplexed nation. Surely, there must be some way to end this quagmire.

Indeed, the nation was in crisis. And yet simultaneously, no one and everyone had a solution.

Is Immigration Harmful?

2007-04-11T16:12:00.000-07:00

This is like asking, "Are more births harmful?"

And that's because the answer is: It depends on who is being born.

If you know beforehand that a rapist will be born (yes, rapists were babies too at one time), then in that case, you might say, "It will be harmful if this person is born."

Similarly, if you know that a potential immigrant is a rapist, then you might say, "Perhaps this person should not be let in."

The main point, so far, is that how one arrives here, through birth or immigration, is irrelevant. So, immigrants can be a welcome addition -- or not. They can be better than natives: Is there anyone who would not "trade in" one thousand American prison inmates in exchange for one thousand random people from Japan? Or, immigrants can be worse than natives -- flight schools were recently a good source of such people.

Of course, one difference between immigrants and births is that it is considered immoral to sterilize a parent if there's a good chance that they would give birth to a criminal. But it is acceptable to have immigration quotas. The thinking is: Citizens have an absolute right to procreate, even if they are psychopaths -- but foreigners do not have a right to establish residence wherever they choose, even when they are "model citizens" and pay their own way.

All that said, immigrants build things, make things, and provide services for us. And not just by being day laborers, but also by being software designers, pharmaceutical researchers, architects, etc. In general, it's a good idea to have lots of immigration.

But there are three decent arguments against immigration:

1. Immigrants might take advantage of our generous welfare system and make us poorer.

2. Their lifestyles might conflict with ours, and too many immigrants (whatever that number is) from different cultures might prolong the time required for their assimilation. (This problem might be overstated, though, as a March 2007 study shows that "Hispanics" assimilate like other groups, and are in fact more patriotic than some "native" groups.)

3. Immigrants might include people who might willfully harm others.

So, there is a two-part solution:

1. Encourage productive people to immigrate (and honor their foreign professional certifications), and

2. Prevent bad people and too many "different cultured" people from immigrating.

All of which leaves us with minimizing opposing errors: Increasing #1 raises the risks associated with #2, and reducing #2 increases the risks associated with not having #1.

How can this be accomplished? Country quotas and background checks are a start, but are clearly not perfect. But is there any evidence that the government even understands the issues?

Does Government Debt Matter?

2007-04-10T16:56:00.001-07:00

No.

For all the talk about the government "debt" and "deficits", it is questionable that most people understand these terms. Normally, the "family" analogy is used; i.e., "You wouldn't want your family to be in debt!"

That's a pretty meaningless analogy, as most people would want their families to be in debt under some circumstances, like:

- Buying a house.

- Paying for a college education.

- Borrowing money at 3% and investing it at 7%.

The relevant factor to consider is: What are the alternatives to the government going into debt? In fact, the government has two alternatives, just as any family has:

A) Make the purchase up front, without borrowing.

B) Do not make the purchase at all.

Oddly, when discussing government debt, Alternative (B) never seems to be considered. Instead, the answer is always "raise taxes instead of borrowing". But what does it matter whether taxes are raised to buy something today or to pay off a long-term loan? Neglecting the effect of interest rates, why is it better to empty your bank account to go to the casino instead of emptying your bank account to pay back a gambling loan?

The obvious solution is, "Don't go to the casino to start with." But, if you must go, then borrowing actually makes more sense if you can get a cheap loan -- like the government can with the tax-exempt bonds that it issues.

Put another way, when you are taxed, you are losing your principal and 5% interest that your money would have otherwise earned in the bank. But when the government borrows, then you get to keep your 5% interest at the bank, and pay only 3% interest to the bondholders as they slowly deplete your principal. Of course, if you are paying taxes on your 5% bank interest, then it probably doesn't matter whether the government "borrows" or "takes".

Or, maybe, the government should not be taking your money in any form to begin with.

Should I Die for My Country?

2007-04-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

This is a timely question, given the recent conduct of the kidnapped British sailors who immediately cooperated with, and allowed themselves to be humiliated by, their Iranian captors.

Anyway, most people would probably be ashamed to say anything other than "yes" to this question -- or at least they would say that they would die for their country under the right conditions.

But consider this question: How many people would unhesitatingly drown themselves so that some strangers can stay alive in the proverbial lifeboat? What's the difference between the two situations?

Maybe the lifeboat question should have several similar versions:

Version 1: Would you drown yourself to save six strangers on a boat that sprung a leak?

Version 2: Would you drown yourself to save six countrymen on a boat that was being attacked by a foreign country?

Version 3: Would you drown yourself to save six countrymen from the foreign ship if you could also kill the attackers on that ship?

The likelihood of a "yes" answer (and a "yes" action) would no doubt increase from Version 1 to Version 3.

So: What are the differences between the three versions? There are two:

1. The number of lives saved increases from six to an ambiguous future number if the enemy is attacked.

2. A collective is being saved.

Of the above two differences, the second is probably more influential. One way of seeing that is to pretend that you are sitting in front of three buttons, each of which will instantly kill you if pressed.

Button #1 says: "Push me to save six people, somewhere in the world, from being killed today."

Button #2 says: "Push me to save six of your people who are about to be killed by your group's enemies."

Button #3 says: "The future of your people is at stake. Push me to save six of them AND to kill those who are about to kill them."

In the emotionless confines of a room with buttons, and with the anonymity of the decision, it seems unlikely that any button would be pressed. But Button #1 would probably receive the fewest presses.

So, here are the conclusions:

A) Your group's "life" can be more important that your own life; it's the threatened group that matters, not the threatened individuals.

B) The actual number of people you save is probably not important. (Replace the six people with six hundred people, and see if it makes any difference.)

C) People who value their own lives more than anything else ought to be grateful that there are others who are willing to sacrifice.

D) People who are willing to sacrifice for their group ought to be grateful that there are others who place their own lives first. (Would you want to see cancer researchers enlist for front-line duty?)

E) If you voluntarily took an oath to defend your country, and you cooperate with the enemy and not even apologize for it afterwards, then you probably have very little group allegiance -- but more importantly, you are also a disgraceful fraud.

Can Average Test Scores Increase Without Students Scoring Any Higher?

2007-04-08T18:41:00.000-07:00

You bet.

If you're in charge of the school district, you can increase average scores (and probably your salary) by simply shuffling students from one school to another. With absolutely no change in individual test scores, the averages will increase.

Illustration:

Let's say that there are two schools, one with low-scoring students, and another with high-scoring students. In fact, here are their grades:

School "A"
95
95
90
90
85
85
Average = 90.0

School "B"
90
85
85
80
75
65
Average = 80.0

What you need to do is make some morally superior platitude about how the School "B" students are suffering from segregation, underfunding, discrimination, etc., and then transfer the worst School "A" students to School "B".

In this example, let's transfer two School "A" students. The new distributions are:

School "A"
95
95
90
90
Average = 92.5, an increase of 2.5 points!

School "B"
90
85
85
85
85
80
75
65
Average = 81.25, an increase of 1.25 points!

Now you can report that the average scores in both schools have increased, and can look like the highly-respected public servant that you are.

This process has a name, the Will Rogers Phenomenon, and it has already been shown to reveal deceptive medical statistics -- specifically in cancer survival.

Must be careful with those numbers...

Is Abortion Murder?

2007-04-07T17:41:00.000-07:00

For argument's sake, let's say, "Yes, abortion is murder. A fetus, from the moment of conception, is a human being, and to destroy it is therefore murder."

Then it follows that...

- The aborting mother should face the death penalty, or at a minimum, life imprisonment. We're talking pre-meditated, first-degree murder here.

- Any parental restrictions on the child's behavior after birth is slavery. There should be no cribs, no gates, no rules. If your new-born wants Jack Daniels in his bottle, you had better respect those wishes.

- Come to think of it, if your new baby threatens to cry if you don't feed him Jack Daniels, then you can sue him for intimidation and psychic damage.

- And if the fetus has been difficult, then a lawyer will be waiting to pounce on him as he emerges into the rest of the world.

- Since the fetus is being singled out because it is a fetus, then it probably deserves some hate-crime protections as well.

- If discarding a four-cell embryo is murder, then what can be said of killing cows, pigs, and sheep? (A four-cell embryo is much less developed than an earthworm, let alone more advanced mammals.) A new vegetarianism awaits.

Must Democracies Stagnate?

2007-04-06T19:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, because of political favors granted to reduce competition.

Specifically:

1. Business groups, to maximize profits, demand that the government prohibit competition -- domestic (with restrictive licenses) and foreign (with tariffs).

2. The politicians in government are then pressured to grant these favors, at the risk of not being re-elected.

3. With competition lessened by the government, innovation drops, supplies become artificially low, and we pay high prices.

4. But since each political favor to a business interest costs us pennies, we don't care. No one will petition Congress to save a few cents, on say, sugar -- especially when sugar companies have pressured Congress to maintain quotas that have brought them millions of dollars.

5. However, when all the favors to the many business groups are summed, it costs us a lot.

6. But to stop these favors, each of these hundreds (or thousands?) of laws must be defeated one-by-one. Given the constraints of Point #4, above, this will not happen.

Here's an example:

Recently, President Bush went to Brazil to discuss the substitution of gasoline with sugar-based ethanol. This would make Americans less reliant on foreign oil suppliers, and would reduce the cost of transportation. But although Brazilian farmers were willing to sell cheap ethanol to Americans, Bush indicated that he would not permit the imports without a punitive tariff -- the reason being to "protect" American farmers who are already making corn-based ethanol. But what alternative did Bush have? To anger the farmers, and ruin the chances that his party would win elections?

So, who's the bad guy here:

The politicians, for abusing their power by taking from everyone to give to a privileged few? (But what other choice do the politicians have, if they want to be re-elected?)

Or...

The businesses, for pressuring the government to abuse their power? (But since when is it a crime to support whomever you please in a democratic election? Don't individual citizens do that all the time when their senator fails to "bring home the bacon" from Washington?)

Are both the bad guys? Or is everyone just an honest victim doing their best within a system that will only reward someone else if they fail to follow their incentives?

What Do Polls Say About Atheists?

2007-04-05T16:17:00.000-07:00

On March 31st, Newsweek released the results of a poll done by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. (Their expertise is implied by the use of the word "Princeton" in their name; perhaps this blog should be renamed the "Princeton faQster".)

From this poll, we learn that:

- 3% percent of Americans say they are atheists.

- Oddly, 49% say that they personally know an atheist. If 49% of the population personally knows someone from the 3%, then that, it appears, doesn't add up.

- 26% of Americans say that atheists cannot be moral, and another 6% would have to think about it. Are these people from the 49% who personally know atheists, or from the other 51% who only know them from TV (or whatever)?

- 62% would not vote for an atheist, and another 9% would have to think about it. (Replace "atheist" with "black", "Jew", "woman", or even "Muslim" and see how that sounds. Is there any group, other than, say, child rapists, who would be as automatically disqualified?)

- The survey also says that 4% of "Evangelical Protestants" feel that God had no part in the origin and development of humans.

4% of Evangelical Protestants say that God had no part? They would be interesting people to meet.

Who Pays Taxes: The Buyer or The Seller? The Employer or The Employee?

2007-04-04T16:23:00.000-07:00

One or the other, sometimes both, sometimes none.

Here's a simple example: Say that you buy apples for 20 cents each, and sell them for 25 cents. Then, a 2-cent sales tax is applied. Two different things can then happen:

A) You can charge 27 cents per apple: 25 cents and a 2-cent tax.

B) Buyers might refuse to spend more than 25 cents per apple, so you lower the price to 23 cents, charge a 2-cent tax, and collect a total of 25 cents.

Depending on the buyers' willingness to buy apples at a high price, your willingness to sell them at a low price, and competition among apple sellers and buyers, the final price (including the tax) can be anywhere between 25 cents and 27 cents.

Here's where the real harm comes in: For whatever reasons (say, bad weather), you now need to pay 24 cents for apples, and must therefore charge 25 cents to make a profit. Now, let's say that people will pay a maximum of 25 cents, tax or no tax.

Question: Who will now pay the 2-cent tax?

You're already making as slim a profit as possible, so you have to "pass the tax along" to the buyers. But the buyers don't think apples are worth 26 cents. So: No deal. The apples go unsold, even though you are willing to sell them and people are willing to buy them at a mutually agreed-upon 25 cents.

So...who pays the tax? Regardless of what the law says about who will pay the tax, it will be paid sometimes by the seller, sometimes by the buyer, sometimes by the buyer and the seller, and sometimes -- when businesses are ruined -- by no one.

Should Gambling Remain Illegal?

2007-04-03T17:30:00.001-07:00

No, because most gambling is perfectly legal right now -- and it's a good thing that it is. That is, gambling is the basis of the entire economy; investors gamble with capital so that they will be able to make a profit. To run a business, people gamble that they will be able to recover their upfront costs.

For that matter, all financial markets are pure gambles; "Wall Street" is a giant casino where gamblers bet on stocks instead of on roulette wheels or playing cards. Again, it's a good thing that they do, or companies would have difficulty raising money.

Even when you buy "safe" municipal bonds at a fixed rate of return, you are gambling that interest rates stay low; if they rise, then the value of your bonds will fall. Or, on a smaller scale, when you buy the extra-large Costco megapack of toilet tissue, you are betting that the price of toilet tissue will not go down. For that matter, when you plan your next vacation, you are betting your chances of getting killed in an auto accident that you will instead enjoy yourself.

Placing bets on stocks, or anything else, conveys information. Any blowhard can express an ignorant opinion, but when it's time to "put up or shut up", their opinions tend to be more educated and carefully selected. Which is why "terrorism betting markets" were proposed by The Pentagon after 9/11, though they were immediately rejected by senators posturing as defenders of morality -- even though the same politicians are silent on similar betting markets that convey no useful information, like state-operated horse-race gambling and state lotteries. In fact, as one of the more strident voices against allowing freedom in futures markets, Senator Hillary Clinton ought know a thing or two about that topic.

(There's another hypocrisy analogy here when governments ban or partially-ban drugs like marijuana and codeine, although they peddle all-you-can-drink alcohol at municipally owned/financed stadiums. And for the ultimate in government hypocrisy, bear in mind that taxation is almost identical to gambling -- except that you are guaranteed to lose every time.)

Of course, the ostensible reason for opposition to gambling (notwithstanding the above financial-markets examples) is the patronizing view that people are too stupid to gamble prudently, so they must be stopped entirely. Except when the proceeds go to people who define themselves as "Native Americans"; then it's apparently OK for stupid people to gamble away their money, for some reason.

For now, you can gamble all you like with play-money at Inkling Markets; they'll even start you off with five-thousand "dollars". Or, if you wish to wager real money on predicting events, then you can try the Iowa Electronic Markets, which, for some reason has not been shut down. Yet.

Are Some People Poor Because Other People Are Rich?

2007-04-02T18:26:00.000-07:00

"In a world in which more than a billion people struggle to survive on the purchasing-power equivalent of less than $1 a day, there has to be a serious moral doubt about whether anyone should be a billionaire."

- Peter Singer, "Bioethics Professor" at Princeton University, quoted in the L.A. Times, 3/18/07

If you bought a typical house for $100,000 and spent much effort improving it so that it is now worth $200,000, did you make anyone poorer? Would you have a serious moral doubt about the new value of your house? Should your neighbors now be entitled to payments from you? If you answer "yes", then how would that have affected your decision to improve your property to begin with?

If this house happened to be in a neighborhood that, by luck, happened to become very desirable -- and increased its value to $1,000,000, would you then have serious moral doubts about the value of your property? Should you now be sending payments to people in other neighborhoods? If you answer "yes", then how would that affect the desirability of buying houses in areas with potential to improve?

Replace "houses" with "businesses" or "stocks", increase the values, and you have billionaires. How has Bill Gates' ownership of Microsoft stock made anyone else poorer? And by what moral principle should he be obliged to send payments to other people?

To rephrase Professor Singer's insight:

"In a city where many people live in public housing, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should own a house."

"In a city where many people use public transportation, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should own a car."

"In a city where many people are miserable, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should be happy."

Does Milk Go Bad at Exactly Midnight of The Expiration Date?

2007-04-01T18:14:00.001-07:00

Or, if you prefer, here are similar questions:

- Are people suddenly responsible enough to drink at midnight of their 21st birthday?

- Does driving become much more dangerous at 65.001 mph?

- Are you obese if your BMI is 30.0, but not if your BMI is 29.999?

These specific definitions are intended to address the problem of vagueness by pretending that there is precision where there is none. They're forms of the continuum fallacy, which is illustrated by trying to figure out how many grains of sand it takes to make a sand pile. If you have a some sand that is smaller than a sand pile, adding one grain will never convert it to a "pile". But that implies that achieving a sand pile is impossible if you only add one grain at a time.

So, how can vagueness be addressed? Or, more accurately, how can vagueness be managed? Mathematically, it cannot be addressed; it will remain a paradox.

A) Minimize one error, and ignore the other -- which seems to be the usual solution. That is, set an expiration date that will ensure that only 5% of milk will go bad -- and accept the negative consequence that lots of otherwise good milk will be discarded. Or, set a speed limit that will reduce fatal accidents to 5% of unrestricted speed fatalities, and accept that many people will pay the price of wasting lots of time by driving too slow. There's nothing magic about 5% in these cases; in fact, one would have to need to balance the two types of error to find the "correct" solution. But as long as the solution is "one size fits all", there will be inefficiencies and equity concerns. ("Why should that inept person be allowed a drivers license when it is denied to me because I am under the cutoff age? I'm a better driver; I should be driving him!")

B) Redefine these terms to have more categories; i.e. milk can have a "fresh" date, a "probably fresh" date, a "little curdling" date, and a "foul" date. This provides more useful information, though it can be unnecessarily confusing. Also, it does not address the vagueness issue because each of these new categories would be defined by artificially precise dates.

C) Assign probabilities to freshness; i.e., develop a thermometer-like scale from 0% freshness to 100% freshness. However, this doesn't address the problem; it ignores it. By analogy, this would be like replacing the vague word "fever" with only a numerical gauge.

D) Evaluate every product and person individually. This addresses equity issues, but not vagueness. That is, it doesn't explain exactly when someone becomes obese or bald.

E) Use plain-English and common-sense intuition to either override or complement numerical data and express the evaluation in plain English. Milk sitting at room temperature, someone driving 75 mph with no traffic nearby, and a psychopath 35-year old reaching for a case of beer are all examples of where unanticipated factors invalidate the original "rules" and would make us say, respectively, that the milk might be getting old, that there is minimal added danger in driving faster, and that the psychopath should probably not drink too much, regardless of age. It's related to fuzzy logic, and though it doesn't resolve the vagueness paradox, it does help solve the problem.

Are Socialists and Their Left-Wing Ilk Religious?

2007-03-31T20:40:00.001-07:00

Yes they are:

1. Instead of trusting the evolving processes of free markets, they assume that an omnipotent, prescient, just, and benevolent leader can solve all problems.

2. Their doctrine demands today's needless sacrifices (taxes, economic controls, endless regulations, social engineering, etc.) to establish tomorrow's ambiguous utopia.

3. They have a rigid doctrine to which all members subscribe -- and display complete agreement in all aspects of subsidiary issues (wars, gay rights, recycling, etc.)

4. Their beliefs rest on faith; even when repeatedly disproven, they keep believing.

5. Israel is central to their beliefs.

6. They evangelize in public.

Can Doctors Calculate Statistics?

2007-03-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

Here's a simple problem. Let's say that there's a disease that strikes one person in a thousand. And let's also say that there's a test for the disease that, on average, mistakenly indicates that fifty healthy people in a thousand have this disease. Now you take this medical test, and the result is "positive".

Now for the question: What is the probability that you have this disease?

Well, we know that in our population of one thousand, this test will result in a "positive" for 51 people, of which only one will have the disease. So, the answer is that the probability is one out of 51, or just under 2%.

These are conditional probabilities (or, if you prefer, Bayesian reasoning), and if understand this concept, then you probably know more than your doctor:

Hoffrage and Gigerenzer (1998; Gigerenzer, 1996) tested 48 physicians on four standard diagnostic problems, including mammography. When information was presented in termsof probabilities, only 10% of the physicians reasoned consistently with Bayes’ rule

For instance, Eddy (1982) asked physicians to estimate the probability that a woman with a positive mammogram actually has breast cancer, given a base rate of 1% for breast cancer, a hit rate of about 80%, and a false-alarm rate of about 10%. He reported that 95 of 100 physicians estimated the probability that she actually has breast cancer to be between 70% and 80%, whereas Bayes’ rule gives a value of about 7.5%.

One obvious (to me, at least) question is this: With these sort of medical tests, it seems like the outcome is "healthy" regardless of the test result. So, what's the point of the test?

Does Wal-Mart Lower Wages For ALL Workers?

2007-03-29T15:38:00.001-07:00

"Wal-Mart's lack of respect for their employees drives down standards for all retail workers."

- Stuart Appelbaum, President of Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union

The most charitable interpretation of the above quote is that when Wal-Mart lowers wages, then its competitors will go out of business unless they too lower wages. However, this is fallacious for several reasons:

1) Wal-Mart has as much control over wages as you have over the value of your home. Wages are set by market conditions: The size of the labor pool, the skills and productivity of labor, the competition for labor, the alternatives for labor, and so on, all affect wages -- not what any employer feels like paying. In fact, all retailers would like their labor costs to be zero, but they cannot make that happen. So, they must pay the market price for labor.

2) All else being equal, a new Wal-Mart would increase employee wages. If the size of a labor pool is fixed, a new Wal-Mart would increase the demand for workers, and wages will be bid up.

3) Wal-Mart makes workers better-off; otherwise, why would they apply for a job at Wal-Mart? Why would 25,000 people apply for 325 positions at a new Wal-Mart near Chicago?

4) If a new hotel chain opened with very poor quality rooms, would that "drive down standards" for all hotels? Or would that hotel chain go out of business? When a restaurant is found to have rats running through the dining area, do other restaurants respond by planting rats in their dining rooms?

What Are The Worst Things About Religion?

2007-03-28T17:34:00.000-07:00

1. Its substitution of reasoning and evidence with blind faith.

2. Its substitution of curiosity, open-mindedness, and critical thinking with forever-immutable and often-dubious "facts". Not only does this retard discovery, but it is also a dull existence.

3. Its encouragement of tribalism (although, admittedly, the absence of religion would probably result in tribalism based on other things).

4. Its providing adherents with a self-defined moral cover to harm others, from imposing restrictions on medical research to flying planes into skyscrapers -- let alone the harm done to children along the entire spectrum from bar-mitzvahs, to scaring them with stories about "hell", to female genital mutilation.

5. Its providing adherents with license to prohibit any discussion of behavior derived from their beliefs. From loud public displays of evangelism, to the "right" to go home early on Fridays, to the "right" to not touch pork in your supermarket job that you voluntarily accepted, to the public broadcasting of religious services, to the "right" to terrorize airplane passengers, any refusal to accommodate religious demands is interpreted as an attack on "constitutional rights".

Otherwise, no problem.

Does Poverty Cause Crime?

2007-03-27T15:40:00.000-07:00

No, not in any meaningful sense.

The answer is qualified because, under laboratory conditions, where all other factors are isolated, there might, in some cases, be an association between poverty and crime. And even then, and association between two variables doesn't imply that one caused the other.

In any case, there are three things worth noting:

1. There is no correlation between crime and poverty associated with time.

If poverty caused crime, then crime would have been out of control during the Great Depression. In fact, if there was a direct relationship between the two, then the ever-increasing affluence of the United States should have caused a corresponding drop in crime over the last few decades. But crime grew very rapidly in the 1960s, and in fact corresponded with the billions of dollars spent by the "Great Society" to end poverty. It can almost make one think that that there was a correlation between the growth of welfare payments and the increases in crime.

2. There is no correlation between crime and poverty associated with place.

Chinatowns are among the poorest areas in the United States, but have little crime. Similarly, rural areas are poorer than urban areas, but have less crime. And West Virginia is one of the poorest, but also has relatively little crime.

3. Crime is cultural

Income levels are useless for predicting crime, but cultural patterns (assisted by biology) are excellent for predicting crime. As a proxy for culture, variables such as "ethnic group" or "race", gender, and age will yield fairly reliable results; a population comprised of people who are black, male, and young will generate more crime than a population who is white, female, and old, while controlling for affluence. (For that matter, black-male-young will generate more crime than black-female-young, white-male-young, or any other group where even one of the three black-male-young variables are changed.)

After the bulk of crime is explained by cultural patterns, there is probably a residual explanation that correlates with wealth. That is, among any cultural group, crime declines as wealth goes up. That might mean that "poverty" causes crime, or it might mean that criminals tend to be the sort of people who do not get rich, or it might mean that there is a third variable that makes some populations both poor and criminal. For example, it might be that while being poor might not have much influence on making criminals, being poor in the presence of rich people might "produce" criminals.

That is called "envy". And although envy is part of everyone's character, the decision to act on it is nevertheless an individual choice. No one needs to be a criminal.

What is the Philosophical Basis of the Leftist/Communist/Socialist Movement?

2007-03-26T16:28:00.000-07:00

As the graph shows, the most defining features are Groupism, Paternalism, and Equality (all outcomes should be the same for everyone, regardless of merit, regardless of free choice, etc). This should be no surprise, as their rhetoric is heavily concentrated with talk of the "community", "taking care of everyone", and "equality". The ideas of Individualism, Equity (you get what others feel you are worth), and Liberalism ("live and let live") are poison.

Its appeal is the satisfaction of envy and selective morality. No one will ever be better-off than you, and no one will be better-off than anyone else. For many people, this matters more than material wealth or the sense of individual freedom and responsibility. And by ignoring those who are harmed by such a philosophy, you can feel a surge of morality as you sense that you are helping those beneath you; i.e., the "other".

As such, relativism is more important that absolutism; i.e., the very definition of "envy" is based on relativism.

Consequentialism is also important. Nominally, communism/socialism (and similar left-wing causes) are the means towards establishing a goal. However, there is little evidence that this ambiguous "goal" is important -- and from all appearances, socialism is much less of a process than being an end in itself. Therefore, these movements are basically consequentialist.

Most other philosophical components are in between. Most visibly, "enemies" (capitalists, Republicans, etc.) have the free will to do evil, but ordinary criminals and terrorists are deterministically reactive and cannot control their behavior.

And although there is a huge emotional component (especially envy), these movements are not without reason. Their leaders, for instance, are perfectly capable of developing calculations to increase their power and economic gain by inciting their followers.

Their strategies are also a mixture of fighting (e.g., labor unions) and cooperating (politicians). Whatever works.

And finally, they are quite certain of what they want; there is no room for skepticism in any mass movement.

In summary: Left-wing adherents seem to be driven by emotional fulfillment from:

A) Envy

B) Envy-by-Proxy

C) Paternalism

D) Selective morality

What are the main components of any philosophy?

2007-03-25T19:09:00.000-07:00

A) Consequentialism <----> Deontology

Do the ends justify the means?

B) Free Will <----> Determinism

Do people have the ability to make choices?

C) Reason <----> Emotion

Are the rules of formal logic being followed, or are human emotions providing guidance?

D) Relativism <----> Absolutism

What should things be measured against: Absolute standards or relative standards?

E) Skepticism <----> Certitude

At what point do the questions end?

F) Individualism <----> Groupism

How much influence should the group have on an individual?

G) Cooperation <----> Fighting

When conflict arises, which is the better strategy: To negotiate/cooperate or to compete/defeat?

H) Liberalism <----> Paternalism

To what extent should anyone have control over others?

The above eight factors are fairly -- though not completely -- independent of each other.

And knowing these factors can help you assess how others think.

For example, anyone in a mass movement will score to the right side of factors "E", "F", and "H". And to a lesser extent, they will be to the right on "C". But beyond that, "A", "B", "D", and "G" can vary. For instance, environmentalists will be to the right of "A", and political parties will be to the left. Similarly, Christians would be to the left of "B" and criminal apologists would be to the right.

Any group based on envy, like, say, communists, will be to the left of "D" -- and any group wishing to demonize historical figures ("Jefferson had slaves") will be to the right of "D".

Finally, "G" is basically a subset of "A", since it is concerned with the means of achieving a goal -- and most groups will be somewhere in the middle, depending on the situation. However, some are always at extremes.

Are there other philosophical components?

Why Are Taxes Bad?

2007-03-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

Well, first, here's why they're not bad: Forking over lots of money at the end of the year is a meaningless gesture, especially if everyone else does it too. Just as giving $100 to everyone in the country will make no one richer, taking $100 from everyone in the country will make no one poorer. It's just moving around pieces of paper (or, these days, readouts at the ATM or on your PC), and has no effect on supply or demand.

That said, there are basically three bad things about taxes:

1) They create wrong incentives for taxpayers

2) They create wrong incentives for tax recipients

3) They are morally hard to justify

More specifically:

If you were to perform a service that requires a minimum profit, and the taxes reduce your profit from acceptable to unacceptable, then you will not provide that service. And if you do not provide that service, you will lose the opportunity to make money, your customer will be denied your product, and the government will receive no taxes. That is, everyone loses (although the government's failure to receive taxes is probably a positive thing). The technical term for this is "deadweight loss" and affects:

- People who would otherwise want to make extra money by working overtime or having a second job; i.e. their incentive is to now produce less
- Businesses that are marginally profitable (like small stores) who cannot compete against larger and more profitable businesses who can pay higher taxes; i.e., their incentive is to close their business

In short, if you penalize people for being productive, then they will become less productive -- which exacerbates scarcity and increases prices; i.e., we become poorer.

On the receiving end, tax recipients (from those receiving welfare benefits to government employees) are given incentives to remain unproductive. Instead of things, they are paid to be at home or at their government jobs, producingconsuming things. Their consumption exacerbates scarcity; these people do not provide any mitigating production to lessen scarcity. This also makes everyone else poorer.

Finally, it is hard to morally justify the forced taking of anyone else's property -- which is what taxation is. At times, taxes might produce a desirable outcome from a consequentialist perspective -- but that must be compared against undeniable moral problems.

Why Do Some Drugs Require Doctor Prescriptions?

2007-03-23T14:44:00.001-07:00

Ostensible Answer: To keep uninformed patients from harming themselves with complex, and potentially dangerous, medications.

Cynical Answer: Because the AMA pressures the FDA to force patients to pay a new doctor bill whenever they need a drug.

Although physicians have a financial interest in lobbying for legislation as described in the the "cynical answer", we'll set that issue aside and instead focus on the "ostensible answer".

There are three types of patients who need drugs:

1) Knowledgeable people who know which drugs they need, or have the ability to find out by way of free readily-available references on the Internet.

2) People who have no idea of what drug they need, and want to pay a doctor for his specialized knowledge.

3) People who don't know what they are doing, and take the wrong drug and/or dosage, and harm themselves.

Prescription drugs impose a big cost on Group #1 (forcing them to pay unnecessary medical bills, and delaying their drug therapy if they, say, develop a sudden and painful toothache on Saturday evening), a small cost on Group #2 (prescription drugs increase the demand for a fixed supply of physicians, resulting in higher costs and/or longer waits), and, assuming they follow the law, benefit Group #3.

So, here are some secondary questions:

- Why should people in Group #1 and Group #2 being harmed for the benefit of Group #3?

- Should, say, all home repairs be illegal except when done by licensed home contractors? Competent do-it-yourself types (Group #1) would have to pay a lot for contractors, but inept know-it-alls (Group #3) would be protected from their own renovation mistakes.

- Should all cooking be illegal except when being prepared by licensed cooks? Capable do-it-yourself cooks would no longer be able to enjoy their own efforts -- but then, those who don't understand the basics of food handling (Group #3) would suffer fewer incidents of food poisoning.

- Why are any drugs over-the counter? How can people be trusted to self-medicate with anti-inflammatories, decongestants, and antihistamines?

- For that matter, how is it that people can be trusted with over-the-counter nicotine and alcohol, but not with acne creams and codeine?

- Oh, wait. People can be trusted with codeine in the UK and Canada.

- How is it that the punishment for using drugs without a prescription (fine or jail, presumably) is preferable to simply releasing these "criminals" with perhaps a comment like, "Glad to hear that your tooth feels better."

What Should We Do About Global Warming?

2007-03-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

Nothing.

The popular assumption that global warming is real, is caused by human activity, and will culminate in disaster, requires many leaps of faith and many poor decisions.

Accepting the hypothesis that something must be done about global warming requires the following assumptions:

1. Temperatures are rising. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. There seems to be some dispute over this, but the government is saying that temperatures over the last 25 years have increased on average about four-tenths of one degree F. (Apparently, this average is the sum of simultaneous warming and cooling on different parts of the planet.) For argument's sake, let's assume that temperatures are rising.

2. Rising temperatures will lead to catastrophe. The magnitude of global-warming's impact (if any) is speculative, and utterly unreliable when one considers that A) Property values are not declining in coastal areas, and B) People (when not stopped by their government) are generally able to adapt to all sorts of changing conditions. From food preservation to flying to central heating to sun screens to migrating populations to automobile design to agricultural methods, people have used their heads to adapt to environmental changes that were more sudden and more severe than the long-term gradual effect of global warming. But for argument's sake, let's assume that global warming will lead to catastrophe.

3. Global warming is caused by human activity. Earth's temperature has been changing since Day One. Repeated ice ages and hot spells have happened long before people were making "carbon footprints", and for that matter, long before there were people, period. The trouble with attributing global warming to human activity is that it's impossible to do a controlled experiment. We can't switch human activity on and off to see if it indeed has an effect on temperatures. So, as a substitute, we accept as fact that:

A) Human activity increases carbon dioxide, and

B) Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases air temperatures.

By transitivity, we then use logic to conclude that:

C) Human activity causes air temperatures to rise.

All of which, so far, seems appropriate. But then comes the logical flaw of affirming the consequent:

D) If human activity causes air temperatures to rise, then rising air temperatures were caused by increased human activity.

The problem here, which ought to be clear, is that rising temperatures could be the result of any number of things that might dwarf the influence of human activity. Some of these influences are known, such as the variation in the sun's energy and in the orientation and orbit of Earth. Other influences are not known (and might not even exist), but it would be a fallacious argument from ignorance to say something like, "Because we can't figure out the other causes, we'll assume that one possible cause, human activity, is responsible for global warming."

There is no way of determining the influence of human activity on possible global warming. All the forecasters have are mathematical models, produced by vague historical associations and guesswork colored by politics and biases -- which produce dubious results with large margins of error.

But still, for argument's sake, let's assume that global warming is dangerous, and is caused by human activity.

4. Diminishing human activity is a smart investment. What exactly shall we give up to obtain less global warming? How much of global warming's destructiveness will be diminished if we use fluorescent light bulbs? What if we bought more fuel-efficient cars? What if we drove less? What if we stopped driving altogether? What if multiple families shared apartments, as was the case in the (heavily-polluted) Soviet Union?

These questions require an answer of the form: "If we discarded all air-conditioners, then the probability of coastal erosion due to rising sea levels will be diminished by...what?...percent." Or: "If we banned all air travel, then the frequency of hurricanes will be diminished by...what?...percent." Obviously, these questions cannot be answered, because no one has any idea what the benefits will be. Instead, the "environmental" advice is of the form, "It couldn't hurt if we used less energy, so let's do it."

But ignoring the cost of diminished human activity does not make this cost disappear. In fact, less human activity -- less exchange, less production -- results in lower economic growth. And economic growth is precisely what separates the living standards of the USA from Haiti, Mexico, Liberia, etc., etc., etc.

And, ironically, economic growth is what explains the difference in environmental cleanliness between the USA and the aforementioned nations. If you're not rich, you can't afford a catalytic converter.

5. The actions of a few western countries will make a difference. If, say, western governments taxed energy use to lower the quantity demanded by people in west, then there will be more energy available for the rest of the world. For example, if Saudi Arabia cannot sell as much petroleum to Americans, then it will need to lower its price -- and therefore increase the quantity demanded by the Chinese. Think of it this way: If you needed to sell your home, and there was a sudden drop in demand, what would you do? You would, as any homeowner knows, drop the price. In the end, your home will still get sold. Similarly, the petroleum will still be sold -- and used.

Am I Discriminating Against Minorities?

2007-03-21T14:43:00.001-07:00

Let's say that you own a building with ten apartments in a city where 20% of the population is "minority", and that none of your apartments are rented to minorities. Does that make you a "racist"?

In fact, if you were to randomly select tenants for your building, there is an 11% chance of that outcome. And, for that matter, there is a 36% chance that your building would be under-represented with minorities; i.e., a situation where they occupy either none (0%), or only one (10%), apartment. This is not conclusive evidence of discrimination.

[If you like probabilities, then you are probably aware that this is a result of a binomial calculation. There's a simple calculator that does the work for you here.]

Now, let's say that 50% of landlords in this city have no minority tenants; the probability of that happening by chance is about zero. Now, since the expected frequency of such an outcome is only 11%, than means that something is "wrong" with about 80% of the landlords. And all you have to do is figure out which 80% might be discriminating -- or, as is typically the case:

A) Punish 100% of landlords, innocent or guilty, and then,

B) Compel all landlords to have renting quotas.

And it is at that point when you will be discriminating -- against the majority. Is there any reason why that is better than discriminating against the minority?

And worse, the above example assumes that the lack of minority tenants is due to active discrimination. But would active discrimination also explain the lack of male kindergarten teachers? Or young people in hospitals?

If you want to see whether you are discriminating, look at the neighbors you chose to live near and look at the spouse you selected -- and then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are guilty.

Does it Make Sense to "Buy Local"?

2007-03-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

Of course it does, simply because everything is "local" to someone. Put another way, if you purchase an item made 8,000 miles away, then that item was made locally to people who live 8,000 miles away. Therefore, every purchase is local, no matter what.

So, let's rephrase the question: Does it make sense to "buy locally" only from people who happen to live near you? If the answer is "yes", then that means that someone living thousands of miles away should never buy anything from you. Or, depending on how "locally" is defined, it could mean that someone living hundreds or miles away, or a few miles away, or even on the next block, should never buy anything from you.

And if "foreign" people should not buy things from you, that means that you should not buy things from them. And if you don't buy things from them, that means that they should not sell things to you. Would you like store-owners and businesses to refuse to sell you things because you don't have the "correct" address? If you still say "yes", then you must be a big fan of public schools. But if you say "no", then you understand that "buy locally" works to no one's benefit except those who happen to have businesses located near very large markets, who want to use propaganda (instead of superior products) to eliminate competition.

And it works to the benefit of businesses near people who feel a tribal kinship towards them, while these businesses hope that foreigners don't have such feelings towards their local businesses.

So, which is better: Buying a foreign-made product from a local business, or buying a locally-made product from a foreign business?

And all of this ignores the entire issue of what is "local" anyway. With inputs from every part of the globe, it is nearly impossible to completely discern the pedigree of any product. A book might have a local author, paper from Canada, a publisher in a different state, assembly from parts made in China, and be sold in yet a different state.

In the end, we all buy local -- but really buying local is an incoherent idea and a waste of time.

Which is More Useful: Empirical Data or Human Judgment?

2007-03-19T17:14:00.000-07:00

Let's say you're a physician and you prescribe a medication to a patient. This medication has known side effects, but the patient reports a side-effect that seems impossible to ascribe to the medication.

Which would you initially feel more comfortable believing:

A) The patient is reporting a symptom unrelated to the medication (your bias: empirical data), or

B) The patient is suffering from a heretofore-unknown side effect (your bias: human judgment).

Now let's say that you just charted a driving route with a mapping program, and a person familiar with the area sees the computer-generated route, and says, "I drive around there all the time and know of a faster route."

Which would you initially feel more comfortable believing:

A) The program, using mathematical algorithms free of human bias, is correct (your bias: empirical data), or

B) The person, with knowledge that the computer doesn't have, is correct (your bias: human judgment).

In both cases, the empirical data derived from the agglomeration of large quantities of data and objective measurements is free of human biases; e.g., the patient might be a hypochondriac, and your motoring friend might be avoiding the best route because of one or two bad experiences.

But...in both cases, the empirical data was also generated by humans -- humans who can easily overlook critical factors when assembling data. And the empirical data was processed by a quick-calculating, but nevertheless very dumb, piece of electronic equipment that cannot consider any factors beyond what humans fed it.

So, the answer is: There is no simple answer; just consider the quality of your sources.

How Can We Achieve Equality?

2007-03-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

Equality can be achieved by implementing a totalitarian police state that will ensure that no one is better off than anyone else, no one has tastes or interests that differ from anyone else, and no one has knowledge or abilities that anyone else lacks. The simplest (though certainly not effective) way of achieving this is through extermination of populations that are perceived as being better off; i.e., millions of dead Kulaks, Jews, Chinese, Cambodians, and so forth were the products of the better-off getting what they had coming to them. When faced with someone "better off", it was much easier to equalize things by killing them instead of emulating them. However, the exterminations never achieved their goals, and we have yet to reach a condition of a perfect ant-like existence -- where everyone is identical and has no desires other than to kill themselves in defense of their leader.

In the USA, there are no mass exterminations -- but there is an ongoing popular movement to increase equality. We have "Two Americas", we have "the common good", and we have demagogues inciting the masses over the differences between CEO and "worker" salaries. Our ever-increasing standards of living are ignored, and instead, we are encouraged to focus on how much better the next guy has it -- which is nothing more than pouring acid into the emotional open wound of envy. In different contexts, these demagogues would be committing the criminal offense of incitement to riot, but when spoken in the context of "justice" or "democracy" or some other feel-good vernacular, they come across as "compassionate" or "caring" or anything else that is the opposite of what they really are -- cynical opportunists creating crises where there are none, and counting on mob emotions to grant them power over others.

Is there any reason to suppose that equality is worth achieving? Would you want to wake up in a world where you are the same, or equal, to everyone else? Would you want to be treated the same way as everyone else, regardless of what you produce or what you desire? Would you want to be denied anything that might make you happier than anyone else?

When people are punished for being better-off, then why would they want to try being better-off? And how would anyone benefit when everyone loses the desire to be better off?

What is the Difference between Policing and War?

2007-03-17T11:38:00.001-07:00

Policing requires the use of retaliatory force (and to a much lesser extent, "preventive" force) to ensure that criminals, as individuals, are punished for crimes they have committed.

War is the use of force against a collective group to kill them, enslave them, and/or to prevent them from attacking.

From this perspective, policing is targeted at individuals, and war is targeted at groups. And, from this perspective, the natural inclination is to condemn all wars because they kill innocent individuals. (As an aside, anyone who feels that wars are unjustified under any conditions ought to be a proponent of assassinations, as only individual leaders would then be killed -- and not their innocent subjects.)

The trouble is: What to do when a collective army decides to declare war on your country? Should your army only target enemy soldiers who are suspected of actually harming anyone -- perhaps after each enemy soldier is tried by a jury of his peers?

And what if civilians on the enemy side "get in the way"? Should your army accept casualties to defend the principle of not harming the enemy's civilians? How many soldiers on your side are worth the life of an innocent enemy civilian?

Four questions:

1. How much of an increased risk to your life (and to your children's lives) would you accept to ensure that your army doesn't harm any innocent people on the other side?

2. How much increased risk do you think your enemy's civilians would accept to ensure that you and your children are not harmed?

3. Would you now care to change your answer to Question #1?

4. If you just changed your answer to Question #1, how do you think that would affect the way your enemy's civilians might change their answer to Question #2?

Sometimes policing is more effective, and sometimes war is more effective. And even then, no one really knows the answer until after the conflict is over.

Which is More Important: The Means or The Ends?

2007-03-16T17:58:00.000-07:00

It depends.

Absolutists who say means are the only thing that matters (deontologists) can be found moralizing about how "wars, regardless of their aims, are always wrong, if even a single innocent person is killed."

Absolutists who say that the ends, or outcomes, are what matters (consequentialists) can be found moralizing about how "equality of wealth must be achieved, regardless of how much the rich are taxed."

Very often, the same people can be both absolute deontologists and consequentialists in the space of two sentences, as illustrated above. These people can fluidly go back and forth between philosophical poles in order to rationalize their predetermined conclusions.

In the first example, it would be interesting to ask the question, "Can a single person be killed if it can be demonstrated that one billion could be saved by such an action?"

In the second example, it would interesting to ask the question, "Would it be desirable to annihilate all but the poorest people in order to achieve equality?"

To be ideologically consistent in each case, while remaining indifferently oblivious to their own internal inconsistencies, they might very well answer "Yes" to both questions.

How Can I Write In A Gender-Neutral Manner?

2007-03-15T16:19:00.000-07:00

By using "his" instead of:

- His or hers
- Their
- One's
- The person's

His dog -- and not his or her dog. their dog, one's dog, or the person's dog.

In many languages, most nouns are considered either masculine or feminine. This categorization, to us, seems to be a vestige of some long-forgotten and primitive way of looking at the world. Why is a fork considered masculine in Burpian? And why is a hat considered feminine in Blemish? It seems nonsensical.

Or is it? Certainly, sophisticated languages such as French that routinely genderize neutral words could not possibly be considered nonsensical -- or "sexist". Then, why should English be singled out for its occasional genderizing of gender-neutral or gender-ambiguous objects?

Just as words like "turnip" and "cardboard" have genders in other languages by custom, English usually uses "he" to describe gender neutrality or ambiguity.

And yet, watch as people trip over themselves with semantic distractions with sentences like, "I hope that he or she will honor my receipt". Instead of making your point about getting a refund, you have distracted your audience to instead focus on the pronoun construction.

Like any other language (or actually, more than most other languages), English has lots of odd grammar and vocabulary rules -- in addition to seemingly illogical idioms. But fortunately, we all understand how words ending in "ough" are pronounced, we all understand that "goed" is not the past tense of "go", we all understand that "long in the tooth" means "getting old", and we all understand that "he" does not necessarily imply that the subject is male. It's a feature of the language, and not a "statement" about women.

People interested in interpreting innocuous language patterns as political expressions of victimhood might feel otherwise, though.

Mexico or Russia: Which is Poorer?

2007-03-14T16:08:00.000-07:00

It's pretty close.

According to The Economist Pocket World in Figures (with the poorer country in bold)...

Male Life Expectancy: Mexico 73.7 Russia 58.7

Female Life Expectancy: Mexico 78.6 Russia 71.8

Adult Literacy: Mexico 71.9% Russia 99.4%

GDP per Head: Mexico $6,450 Russia $4,080

Unemployment: Mexico 2.5% Russia 7.8%

Inflation: Mexico 4.0% Russia 12.7%

Doctors per 1,000 People: Mexico 1.9 Russia 4.3

Hospital Beds per 1,000 People: Mexico 1.0 Russia 10.5

Color TVs per 100 Households: Mexico 90.5 Russia 75.2

Telephone Lines per 100 People: Mexico 17.2 Russia 27.5

Mobile Phones per 100 People: Mexico 36.6 Russia 51.6

Computers per 100 People: Mexico 10.7 Russia 13.2

Mexicans are less educated, and have fewer phones and computers. But Russians have less money and fewer TVs.

The interesting statistic (to me, at least) is how Mexicans have only half as many per capita doctors and one-tenth (!) as many hospital beds, but Mexican men live fifteen years longer than their Russian counterparts.

In any case, it's pretty easy to see what the future holds for both nations:

Mexican Birth Rate: 22.4, Mexican Death Rate: 4.5

Russian Birth Rate: 8.6, Russian Death Rate: 16.0

How Can I Look Like an Expert?

2007-03-13T15:29:00.000-07:00

An expert knows how to establish a reputation; here's how to do it:

1) Find an event whose outcome is almost assured, and loudly predict that outcome every time. For example, find the name of your incumbent political representatives and predict that they will win. On average, if there is a 90% chance that incumbents win, then you will have a winning percentage of 90% -- and bragging rights! IMPORTANT: Don't be a smart-ass and randomly pick incumbents 90% of the time, and challengers 10% of the time; if you do, your winning percentage will drop to 82%. (In that case, you will correctly pick an incumbent .9 x.9 = 81% of the time, and you will correctly pick a challenger .1 x .1 = 1% of the time.)

2) Make lots of unlikely predictions. Once in a while (like the proverbial clock that's right twice a day), you will be correct. At that point, you should constantly remind others of your uncanny forecasting ability -- and they will frequently return to tap your expertise. No one will remember your losing predictions anyway -- and even if they do remember, those incorrect predictions will be dwarfed by your spectacular long-shot insights.

3) Use lots of jargon (preferably in Latin), name-drop, boast about your academic credentials and your years of experience, and condescend to your audience. If you have a European accent, use it! Never acknowledge that other views might be correct, never express any doubt, never display humor (though sarcasm can be OK) -- and if anyone questions you, feign disgust (unless disgust comes naturally). Be dismissive of others and make your impatience known when they speak; talk over them if you need to. And utilize Points #1 and #2!

Do People Have Free Will to Make Choices?

2007-03-12T18:41:00.001-07:00

Yes.

Granted, on a very low level -- maybe the molecular level -- all inputs into our brains might be transformed into deterministic outcomes. That is: It's certainly plausible that, because we are mobile bags of chemicals, our behavior can be predicted by a ridiculously complex mathematical model that no man nor machine can come close to comprehending.

So, in the most strict biological sense, your wavering between picking the Dr.Pepper or the Mountain Dew might be a "programmed" response comprised of quazillions of miniscule electrical charges and other teencie-weencie microscopic activities that you have no "control" over. In short, some people would say that every event must have some cause -- and that the bio-physical chain of events only gives us an illusion of choice.

All of which is irrelevant to the question.

When you are looking at, say, someone's face, you are seeing what they look like -- and your assessment of the face is based on the composition, expression, coloring, shape, and whatever else. Never mind that what you are really looking at are millions and millions of cells and chemicals and atoms and so forth -- which, when combined on a massive scale, only gives us the illusion of a face. A car's steering wheel doesn't actually turn the wheels; it instead triggers a chain of actions that give the illusion that the steering wheel is turning the wheels. But... you can recognize faces, and steer cars -- even if you don't understand how you got to that point.

You see where this is going.

When confronted with a choice between two beverages, the deterministic bio-physical components (if any), when summed, enable us to select either drink. Similarly, a pitcher and the hitter, trying to outguess each other, are actively making choices. If you've read this far, that was your decision to read.

The fact that no one understands how choices are made at the lowest levels doesn't matter. (Low-level brain activity is all speculation anyway, and no one even claims to understand the process -- if there is one.) Everyone who isn't brain-damaged can make choices. Maybe they make stupid choices, maybe they make seemingly irrational choices, but they can all make choices. Under the right circumstances, with the right incentives, everyone is capable of saying, "I'll take the Mountain Dew".

What Happened in Iraq?

2007-03-11T16:58:00.000-07:00

Let's illustrate this with a story.

There was once a block with some pretty bad neighbors. One man in particular was pretty nasty; he looked creepy, he threatened people in the neighborhood, and regularly beat members of his family. Then one day, he started talking about how he would start killing people in the neighborhood. Worse, a cable installer noticed that the nasty man was accumulating lots of weapons, and was threatening to use them: Guns, poisons, and even grenades. The police were notified of this, and then one day, they invaded his house -- and though they do not harm him, or even arrest him, they did pulverize his weapons.

The neighborhood was able to rest a bit easier, but the nasty neighbor continued his ways of beating his family and threatening others. Then, one day, he rounded up some friends and they invaded other people's homes. In one instance, they settled in, and declared that the house and its property was theirs. The police were called, and the nasty neighbor was told to go home. Again, he was not arrested or harmed; he was just told to go home.

That worked to some extent, but he continued to beat his family and threaten others. He even murdered some relatives. The police, concerned about this, set up a monitoring station near his house so that they could observe him. They couldn't see much, but they were something of a deterrent. The nasty man was still behaving in a threatening manner, but the aggressiveness lessened.

A few years went by, and then, on one sunny morning, some other bad neighbors went on a sudden killing spree. They carjacked some vehicles by cutting open the throats of unsuspecting motorists, and gunned down people mowing their lawns, children playing in yards, and anyone else they happened to see. They finally rammed their cars into a shopping center, killing everyone in the stores, and themselves. And shortly afterwards, many people in the neighborhood died from a poisoned water supply, though no one was able to figure out how the water became tainted.

The nasty man celebrated. And, despite what just happened, continued to threaten his neighbors. But now, with the whole neighborhood being very jumpy, they wanted assurance that the nasty man was not accumulating weapons again. And so, the police knocked on his door, asking to inspect his house. His responded by shutting the door tight and telling them to go fuck themselves. But instead of forcing their way in, the police kept knocking and pleading with him to please allow them to enter so that they can be assured that he has no weapons.

This went on for months. The nasty man was allowing his friends and relatives to come and go, but would not let the police in. Then, one day, some less-favored relatives escaped and told the police that the nasty man was in fact accumulating many weapons. Finally, the police issued a warning to the nasty man: Let us in, or we'll come in. Then, after weeks of police department meetings, consultations with other police departments, neighborhood association meetings, and consultations with people in different counties, the police gave an ultimatum, and finally entered the house.

They discovered many corpses buried in the yard. And as they took the nasty man away, some relatives cheered, while others (perhaps with "battered wife syndrome") swore vengeance on the police and the neighborhood. The police were violently attacked, and killed their attackers. But others got away. And, worst of all, new relatives started appearing from other parts of the neighborhood and attacked the police. While the police were defending themselves, they also searched the house, but could not find any weapons beyond a few knives and a pistol or two. Some speculated that the weapons might have disappeared in the convoy of U-Haul trucks that would regularly come and go, but no one could prove it.

Not only were people in the Nasty Man's house attacking the police, but relatives and friends of the other bad neighbors came by to attack the police and threaten people in the neighborhood. Eventually, chaos ensued when the police were unable to tell who belonged in the nasty man's house, who was visiting, who was a threat, and who was not a threat. The police, with reinforcements from other counties, were already in the neighborhood, arresting the friends of the suicide crew in their homes, but even there, they could not tell who was a threat and who was not. The big picture: The police, apprehensive about arresting innocent people in the nasty man's house, instead became targets themselves. And the honest people in the neighborhood were still being threatened by friends of the nasty man, and friends of the bad neighbors.

And then something unexpected happened: The police from the other counties decided to leave. And people living in other neighborhoods and counties dropped their support for the honest people being threatened. Even worse: Many people in the neighborhood, who were the targets of the nasty man, who had neighbors and relatives murdered by the car-rental gang, and who were continuously being threatened, turned on their own police department. Rather than wanting the police to remove the threat to their lives, they instead wanted to the police commissioner to resign -- in fact, they wanted to fire him! They apologized to the other counties for causing trouble. They even went so far to say that the threats, the violence, and the murders in their neighborhood were the fault of the police commissioner.

While the police were standing by and being murdered by the bad people in the neighborhood, many law-abiding people went to the local precinct to protest. While the bad people in the neighborhood were threatening to take over their homes and kill them, too, these people cried that all would be better if the police just went back to the precinct house and did paperwork. And with police corpses being dragged out of the criminals' houses, these people kept insisting that they were protesting the police action to help the police; they insisted that they supported the police.

Eventually, a new nasty man, perhaps even nastier than the first nasty man, made himself known. He openly stated that he was building the most lethal weapons known to man, and that he intended to use them to wipe his neighbors off the map. "Imagine a world without my neighbors," he would say. And he would send his friends around town to murder people by firing at them from adjacent yards. And everyone else in the neighborhood responded by ignoring him, and getting angry at the police commissioner for thinking about how to respond. Many people in the neighborhood, and everyone in other neighborhoods, became obsessed with hating the police commissioner and also hating the few people in the neighborhood who realized that they were the targets of these threats.

The story ends, so far, with police still being killed in the nasty man's house -- and with apparently little inclination to enter the new nasty man's house.

How Should I Confront Certitude?

2007-03-10T17:33:00.000-08:00

There are times when people actually have good cause to be certain of things; this is not about them. It's about people who exhibit the obnoxious trait of continuously being certain about most everything, without justification.

Some people might consider their certitude a technique towards "winning" their every conversation. Others might worry that any doubt will make them appear inferior next to a seemingly brighter interlocutor. Some might feel brilliant if they feel like they know everything. Others feel comfortable in world that is simple and unambiguous. Some are delusional. And others might simply just not want to think much about anything.

Regardless, it can be a very annoying trait -- and the most extreme cases should be avoided.

But sometimes, we find ourselves confronted with certitude that cannot be walked away from. How should this be handled?

Well, it should not be handled by presenting refuting evidence -- unless, of course, you just want to be provocative; a genuine certifoon cannot be persuaded of anything that is contrary to his beliefs.

There are, however, two approaches that can lessen the onslaught -- and each is dependent on whether the certifoon's proposition is testable.

If it is testable (e.g., predictions of interest rates, sport outcomes, elections, etc.), then you need to ask the certifoon how much he is willing to wager on his prediction. Or, to emphasize your point, just offer him one dollar if his prediction turns out to be correct. And also ask him how much he will surrender to you if his prediction is wrong. And then ask him why he is not offering more than whatever he just put up.

This technique will not work if your certifoon is also a cheapskate. Few things are worse than a certiskate. This technique will also not work if he brings up irrelevant moral platitudes like how "you cannot put money on such a thing".

If the certifoon's proposition is not easily testable (religious dogma, silly medical advice, common superstitions, etc.), then ask him what it would take to get him to change his mind. If you get an answer, then you might have made some progress. If the answer is "nothing can change my mind", then the conversation is over.

Should the Government Sanction Homosexual Marriages?

2007-03-09T17:12:00.000-08:00

No, the government should not sanction homosexual marriages.

That answer would upset many people.

But those who object to that answer would probably feel better if the phrase was appended with, "...and neither should the government sanction any marriages."

There, all better. Homosexual marriages would still be unrecognized, but with universal un-recognition, it's now palatable. It makes you wonder whether the demands for gay marriage are more related to A) A desire to be married, or B) Envy of heterosexuals.

Regardless, why should any association between two (or more) people be the business of the government? If the minister (or priest or rabbi or Fred's Marriages Inc.) make the relationship "official", then what interest could the government have...besides the IRS?

Many heterosexuals find the thought of homosexual sex disgusting. But then, there are undoubtedly many homosexuals who find heterosexual sex disgusting. And there are many (probably most, actually) homosexuals and heterosexuals who find dead-animal necrophilia disgusting. But as long as no one is compelled to participate in acts that they don't like, then why should anyone care about what others do? And most of all, why should the government care? Why should they be in the marriage business?

Or was that already answered?

Does Public Transportation Save Energy?

2007-03-08T16:17:00.000-08:00

No.

Public transportation, like any other activity, uses energy. But the implication of the question is that public transportation uses less energy than the alternative of no public transportation.

But this is also false.

Let's make optimistic assumptions about public transportation; i.e., assume that it's widely used -- and buses are packed with people around the clock. For that matter, let's also assume that every one of these people would have otherwise used the most gas-guzzling vehicles they could find.

Those public-transportation people therefore use less energy than if they drove instead. And that implies that the supply of energy sources (like, say, oil), would not be depleted as quickly. And that would keep oil prices low; i.e., more oil = low oil prices.

So far, so good: Public transportation looks like a "winner".

But...those low oil prices would induce motorists to use more energy, leaving us back where we started, energy-wise. And if the government artificially keeps oil prices high with lots of taxes to "conserve" oil, then oil will become more abundant elsewhere in the world, like, say, China. The oil will still be used, but not by us.

Also, an unintended (?) result of subsidized public transportation is that it artificially raises the demand for all travel -- and that in itself increases the total amount of energy used by all transportation. For that matter, transit "advocates" constantly claim that highway congestion cannot be solved by constructing new highways because the new highways will fill up almost immediately. Well, if that's the case, then why wouldn't the empty highways resulting from nearby public transportation construction also fill up almost immediately?

Why should it be a government policy to encourage people to use transportation more than they would without taxpayer-supported "incentives"? If the goal is to use less energy, then shouldn't the government be discouraging transportation? And yet, public-transportation users are not expected to pay their way. (And, in all fairness, neither do motorists -- there are hardly any road-user prices anywhere.)

So, it looks like public transportation has no effect on the total amount of energy used, increases the amount of energy that transportation requires, and presents a large bill to taxpayers.

None of this is to imply that public transportation (or, more accurately, mass transportation) is intrinsically bad, but the claim that it saves energy is false.

Does Proximity to a Lake Cause People to Have Colonoscopies?

2007-03-06T15:36:00.000-08:00

There is a weak, though statistically significant correlation between the two. Specifically, an increase in a state's area under water is associated with an increase in the percentage of people over the age of fifty who have colonoscopies.

Therefore, in order to encourage more people to have colonoscopies, we should increase the size of lakes -- or somehow submerge more land under water. Artificial flooding would probably do the trick -- or perhaps increased carbon emissions would lead to health-improving global-warming floods.

But then, maybe we have cause-and-effect reversed. Perhaps an increase in colonoscopies results in more land-under-water; colonoscopies might be a bigger threat to the environment than the aforementioned carbon emissions!

Or, could this all be coincidence? In fact, I went to StateMaster, and arbitrarily selected the "Percentage of Area Water" statistics. Statemaster then spit out a long list of correlations with related (and seemingly unrelated) variables, and "Colonoscopy Testing" just happened to be on the top of the list.

No matter how often we hear "correlation is not causation", it never quite sinks in.

Maybe this should be called the "correlation-is-causation" bias.

Makes you think about the relationship between human activity and global warming, too.

Do Military Hospitals Provide Good Care or Poor Care?

2007-03-05T18:10:00.000-08:00

It depends on when you ask the question.

Last year, authoritative economist Paul Krugman declared, in an enthusiastic endorsement of socialism, that the Veterans Administration Hospitals provide better care than private hospitals.

This year, people of a similar ideological bent are blaming the numerous problems of the Walter Reed Medical Center and the Veterans Hospitals on President Bush.

It makes one wonder why they didn't attribute last year's superior care to President Bush, and this year's failures to socialism.

One innocent possibility is confirmation bias, where all evidence appears to confirm one's preconceived conclusions. Or, a more malevolent explanation would be that these people will cynically use anything for propaganda -- although they secretly know that these examples aren't sufficient to support their conclusions.

And in any event, is it really possible for a huge bureaucracy like the Veterans Administration to change so much in only one year?

Are Americans Religious?

2007-03-04T16:54:00.000-08:00

Not particularly.

Although 92% believe in God, 85% believe in heaven, 82% believe in miracles, 71% believe in hell, 63% believe there is a devil, 44% believe that God is male, they are not religious in the sense that they blindly follow everything in The Bible.

It's easy for them to hold those beliefs because none conflict with their hard-wired sense of morality. That is, they select sections of The Bible that don't conflict with their civil lifestyle.

For example, I suspect that few "religious" people (at least, Christians and Jews) would condone putting people to death for working on the sabbath, or for being a homosexual, or for being insolent to a parent. In fact, if you do a Bible text search on the phrase "put to death", you can see dozens of capital offenses that, I think, few people would approve of. It's a long list: Adultery, sex with a daughter-in-law (which returns a death sentence for both parties), bestiality (Fido also gets the death penalty), claiming to be a "wizard", anyone who attempts to dissuade you of a belief in God, anyone who rejects the God's Commandments, blasphemers, and all sorts of other transgressions that I can't understand because the prose is too incoherent.

But there are certainly many references to blood, stoning, eye-gouging, "smiting with iron" -- and enough other violence to ensure that any decent Christian or Jew would not permit their children to view a literal reenactment, assuming that they could stomach these things themselves. Better to believe in the abstractions, and live a life free of literal interpretation -- as civilized people tend to do.

Is The Army as Incompetent as The Post Office?

2007-03-03T18:22:00.000-08:00

Probably yes.

But the Post Office isn't that incompetent; the mail does seem to be delivered reasonably well. The problem with the Post Office is that it is inefficient, as it operates outside corrective competitive forces -- and the result is an expensive service that has reduced incentive to be innovative. Similarly, the Army is also very inefficient, as it also operates outside market forces -- and there are probably many instances of the military wasting money on expensive contractors, as well as sacrificing quality with low-bid contracts.

But there are also differences between the two entities: The Post Office, if open to competition, would have to deal with UPS, FedEx, DHL, and other private delivery services -- and might very well be forced out of business as a result. But the Army is not about to be replaced with Joe's Militia, or to keep the analogies straight, the United Military Service.

So it then comes down to the question of: If the postal service (or the INS, or the Department of Energy, or the DMV, or any other lethargic bureaucracy) cannot be trusted to provide a decent service, then why should we trust the Army to protect us? There are three answers to that:

1) The inefficient U.S. Army doesn't need to be as capable as a well-run private business; it only needs to be better-run than the enemy's inefficient army.

2) Unlike tasks like processing learner's permits, many people (especially males) are hard-wired to excel at fighting to protect their tribe. That is, going to war can be much more than "just a job".

3) Trusting your army to protect you is better than trusting the enemy's army to protect you after they have won.

Which Substances are The Most Addictive?

2007-03-02T21:12:00.001-08:00

None. No substances are addictive; "addiction" is a behavioral trait that is a function of how badly someone wants something else, and is therefore related to the person -- and not the object that they crave.

Some people like cigarettes, some like heroin, and some like alcohol. Others like coffee and others like chocolate. Some like skiing and some like golf. And they have the choice of indulging their preferences or not. They have a choice. They can be self-disciplined and indulge in a sensible amount of their craving, or they can be reckless and overindulge.

But rather than assigning responsibility to those who suffer the negative consequences of overindulgence, we often excuse their behavior by blaming the substance instead. We say that they "can't help it" because the substance is "addictive" -- transforming their personality weaknesses into badges of victimhood, and thereby absolving them from responsibility for their behavior.

And what happens if the addictive substance or activity is not available? Deprived heroin users have mild flu-like symptoms, and deprived cigarette smokers feel agitated. And yet, somehow, cigarette "addicts" fly for twelve hours without a smoke. For that matter, people routinely suffer the consequences of non-indulgence when the payoff is sufficient; e.g., sleep-deprived people disturb their rest by getting up early to go to work, athletes play while in physical pain, and pregnant women reject all pharmaceuticals.

And what exactly does the alcoholic have to endure when being deprived of his next drink?

What is Meant by the Term "Cheapskate"?

2007-03-01T14:44:00.000-08:00

A cheapskate is someone values their possessions (money and otherwise) way beyond what they are actually worth, and is therefore highly reluctant to surrender any of it -- even if, by objective standards, they would materially gain.

It's actually an extreme case of the "endowment effect" that goes well beyond a normal person's apprehension over discarding, say, a shirt that hasn't been worn in years.

A cheapskate crosses the line when someone else is denied an opportunity to gain from a trade. For example, if you keep an old book around collecting dust, no one else is really affected much. But if the book has a unique feature (out-of-print), and you have the opportunity to trade it for something that is even more valuable to you, then you are depriving yourself of a material gain -- and you area also depriving someone else of having that book that he might really want.

Another example: You have plans to have dinner with someone but cannot bear the thought of paying, say, two dollars for a drink -- and so, you instead insist on eating in a roach-infested dive "on principle". In fact, the only principle is that you have trouble parting with fifty cents, even if it means a risk of poisoning yourself and the other person. The "principle" is exposed as a hoax when you accept the other person's offer to buy the drink for you.

And at that point, you are thought of as a "cheap son of a bitch".

Should People Deserve to be Paid by How Hard They Work?

2007-02-28T14:46:00.000-08:00

No, for two main reasons:

1) No one "deserves" anything beyond whatever has been agreed upon between consenting parties. Anything beyond that falls into the categories of charity, welfare, or extortion.

2) All other things being equal, working hard is inefficient. Which oral surgeon would you pay more for: One who "works hard" to pull a tooth in half an hour, or one who does it effortlessly in ten seconds? And if you would pay more for the person who works less, why shouldn't anyone else?

When people work hard, they are wasting resources that could go to an alternative use. All other things being equal, hardly working is much better than working hard.

Is There Really Such a Thing as Racism?

2007-02-27T15:12:00.000-08:00

No, because there is no such thing as "race".

The genetic differences between groups of people with varying physical characteristics are negligible, and in fact are exceeded by the genetic variation within each of these groups. In fact, so-called "racial markers" such as skin color, hair texture, and eye shapes can just as easily be replaced by "races" that are defined by hair color (i.e., the "red-haired people"), eye color, height, etc.

For that matter, common skin hues can be found among people who share few other similarities; i.e., people from the Indian subcontinent, Africa, and Australia Aboriginals.

That said, groups that have been geographically isolated tend to share similar physical characteristics and a similar culture. Most often, when people talk about "race", they are in fact referring to a culture that is shared among people who coincidentally share some general physical characteristics. In fact, some groups with a common culture have been called a "race" when they don't even share well-defined physical characteristics; Jews and "Hispanics" come to mind, as both groups span the entire spectrum of human appearance.

The idea of "race" is appealing because people like to categorize things, even if categorizations are inappropriate. For example, a person with a "white" parent and a "black" parent is considered "black" -- like politicians Obama and Rangel. Why aren't they considered white? At one time, they might have been called "mulattoes", but now they are "black". Are these changing labels the product of scientific breakthroughs in biology? Or are they just social conventions? And how about their children, and their children's children? What are they? Fact is, they might fall into many categories of (sub) culture, intelligence, language, etc., but their race, like everyone else's race, is undefined.

Should Political Leaders have Military Experience?

2007-02-26T16:44:00.001-08:00

The answer is clearly "yes" in countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, and Libya. In other countries, like The United States, the military reports to a civilian government; the generals follow policies that are legislated in Congress and executed by The President.

Some people ask: Shouldn't the children of The President serve in the military? The answer to that is "no", as The President's job is to put his nation first -- and not his parental obligations. That is, with his children in the army, there would be a conflict of interest that might be decided in favor of his children at the expense of the nation.

What is the Difference between Welfare and Charity?

2007-02-26T16:34:00.000-08:00

All financial transactions between strangers fall into these categories:

1) Commerce: This is when both parties go for the last dime at each other's expense; e.g., when you buy an airline ticket, comparison shop on the Internet, shop at the supermarket, etc.

2) Charity: This is a voluntary surrendering of your own money or property, to another party out of pity, guilt, social pressure, or custom. This includes donations to clothing drives, volunteering your time at the hospice, some cases of restaurant tipping, etc.

3) Welfare: This is surrendering someone else's money or property to a third party out of compassion, pity, social pressure, custom -- and probably most often to obtain a sense of righteousness at someone else's expense. The examples are endless, from minimum-wage laws to free-trade restrictions to Social Security to rent control, and so forth.

4) Extortion: This is when you take someone else's money with the threat of violence. If a ward of the state accepts a government check, we call it "welfare" -- but if he takes it from you directly with a gun, then it is "extortion". (Note that welfare requires extortion, with the extorter taking from the many and giving to the few -- and perhaps keeping a commission along the way.)

Is Religious Discrimination Ethical?

2007-02-25T18:49:00.000-08:00

You bet.

Very often, people talk will say that it is improper to discriminate against anyone on account of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Setting the first two aside, what exactly is wrong with discrimination based on religion? In fact, isn't religious discrimination precisely what religious people practice on non-believers?

In practice, most religions demand discrimination favoring their religion, and therefore demand discrimination against other religions. Therefore, banning religious discrimination would require banning religion itself.

But more to the point, religion is a set of beliefs and behavioral systems based on those beliefs. Should we be prohibited from treating people according to what they believe? If my religion requires me to get drunk on the job, does that mean that employers have no right to discriminate against me? And if my religion commands me to kill people who do not share my religion, is it discrimination to scrutinize me when I enter airports?

Are restaurant health inspections necessary?

2007-02-25T16:33:00.000-08:00

No, in fact they are harmful because they are ineffectual, mislead consumers, and are expensive to administrate.

Consider that if inspections were useful, then you would feel free to eat any restaurant you choose, without being concerned about the filthy-looking ones that passed their inspection anyway. As illustrated in this article from the NY Post:

February 25, 2007 -- A city health inspector gave a passing grade to the notoriously filthy, vermin-infested KFC/Taco Bell just one day before shuttering it - after news cameras recorded a rat rampage through the Greenwich Village restaurant.

"We're looking to see if the inspector dropped the ball on this," said Health Department spokesman Geoffrey Cowley. "I think it may not have been as rigorous an inspection as it should have been."

Restaurant cleanliness can be predicted from many things that anyone can observe, directly and indirectly: Garbage on the tables, roaches on the walls, odors, reputation of the franchise, attitude of the employees, visible appearance of the food, etc. And after accounting for those variables, how much extra could possibly be learned from a restaurant inspection by an unmotivated civil servant? Would you really trust the inspector's judgment over your own?

Why Does The World Hate America?

2007-02-25T15:35:00.000-08:00

For the same reasons that they hate the Jews: A convenient target to scapegoat for their own (imagined) problems.

Here's a recent article from The Telegraph called Hatred of America Unites the World. Before you read it, look at our version below where we replaced "Americans" with "Jews". With some minor country-specific references that we deleted, and despite some statistics that are a bit off, it reads very well.

Americans are the New Jews.

Hatred of Jews Unites the World

By Niall Ferguson, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 25/02/2007
Being hated is no fun. Few of us are like those pantomime villains who glory in the hisses and boos of an audience. And few people hate being hated more than Jews. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been asked the plaintive question: "Why do they hate us?" and another for each of the different answers I've heard. It's because of our foreign policy. It's because of their extremism. It's because of our arrogance. It's because of their inferiority complex. Jews really hate not knowing why they're hated.
But who hates Jews the most? You might assume that it's people in countries that Israel has recently attacked or threatened to attack. Jews themselves are clear about who their principal enemies are. Asked by Gallup to name the "greatest enemy" of the Jews today, 26 per cent of those polled named Iran, 21 per cent named Iraq and 18 per cent named North Korea. Incidentally, that represents quite a success for George W. Bush's concept of the "Axis of Evil". Six years ago, only 8 per cent named Iran and only 2 per cent North Korea.

Are those feelings of antagonism reciprocated? Up to a point. According to a poll by Gallup's Centre for Muslim Studies, 52 per cent of Iranians have an unfavourable view of Jews. But that figure is down from 63 per cent in 2001. And it's significantly lower than the degree of antipathy towards the Jews felt in Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two thirds of Jordanians and Pakistanis have a negative view of Jews and a staggering 79 per cent of Saudis. Sentiment has also turned hostile in Lebanon, where 59 per cent of people now have an unfavourable opinion of Jews, compared with just 41 per cent a year ago. No fewer than 84 per cent of Lebanese Shiites say they have a very unfavourable view of Jews.

These figures suggest a paradox in the Muslim world. It's not Jew's enemies who hate the Jews most, it's people in countries that are supposed to be Jew's friends, if not allies.

The paradox doesn't end there. The Gallup poll (which surveyed 10,000 Muslims in 10 different countries) also revealed that the wealthier and better-educated Muslims are, the more likely they are to be politically radical. So if you ever believed that anti-Western sentiment was an expression of poverty and deprivation, think again. Even more perplexingly, Islamists are more supportive of democracy than Muslim moderates. Those who imagined that the Middle East could be stabilised with a mixture of economic and political reform could not have been more wrong. The richer these people get, the more they favour radical Islamism. And they see democracy as a way of putting the radicals into power.

The paradox of unfriendly allies is not confined to the Middle East. Last week was not a good week for Jew-philes in Europe. Anti-Semitism is nothing new in European politics, to be sure, particularly on the Left. But there is something novel going on here, which extends to traditionally pro-Jewish constituencies.

Back in 1999, 83 per cent of British people surveyed by the State Department Office of Research said that they had a favourable opinion of Jews. But by 2006, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that proportion had fallen to 56 per cent. British respondents to the Pew surveys now give higher favourability ratings to Germans (75 per cent) and Japanese (69 per cent) than to the Jews - a remarkable transformation in attitudes, given the notorious British tendency to look back both nostalgically and unforgivingly to the Second World War. It's also very striking that Britons recently polled by Pew regard the Jewish presence in The Middle East as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea (a view which is shared by respondents in France, Spain, Russia, India, China and throughout the Middle East).

Nor is Britain the only disillusioned ally. Perhaps not surprisingly, two thirds of Jews believe that Israel's foreign policy considers the interests of others. But this view is shared by only 38 per cent of Germans and 19 per cent of Canadians. More than two thirds of Germans surveyed in 2004 believed that Jewish leaders wilfully lied about the previous year's Hezbollah invasion, while a remarkable 60 per cent expressed the view that Jews' true motive was "to control Middle Eastern oil". Nearly half (47 per cent) said it was "to dominate the world".

The truly poignant fact is that when Jews themselves are asked to rate foreign countries, they express the most favourable views of none other than Britain, Germany and Canada.

Back in the 1990s, Madeleine Albright pompously called Israel "the indispensable nation". Today it seems to have become the indefensible nation, even in the eyes of its supposed friends.

There are, admittedly, a few scraps of good news in the international polls. There is overwhelming European opposition to Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. And there is a surprising amount of hostility towards the Palestinian radicals of Hamas in both France and Germany. But look again at some of Jew's supposed allies. One in four Indians, two out of five Egyptians and one out of every two Pakistanis favour a nuclear-armed Iran. A third of Britons, half of all Indians and three quarters of Egyptians welcomed the success of Hamas in last year's Palestinian elections.

It's not for nothing that they say it's lonely at the top.

Is it OK to Drink Beer with a Straw?

2007-02-24T14:31:00.000-08:00

Absolutely.

And it is also OK to drink a glass of water with a straw.

But in the case of beer, a straw can penetrate the undesirable head, and thereby make the experience more efficient.

Assuming, of course, that beer is worth drinking. In fact, a case can be made that even most beer-drinkers do not like beer: If they did like beer, then why don't they drink non-alcoholic beer instead of Coke?

Do Schools Violate The Minimum Wage?

2007-02-23T14:28:00.000-08:00

Yes they do.

If paying a sub-minimum wage is bad, then isn't paying nothing even worse? Interns make nothing; aren't their employers therefore breaking the law?

So then, what to make of schools, where students are compelled to perform homework -- and thereby violating the spirit of zoning ordinances, union regulations, and often, child-labor laws?

This is worse than sub-minimum wage, and worse than zero-wage. This is a negative wage, where workers are paying to do work.

Now you can say: "But the school is not gaining from their work!"

And that implies that the purpose of a minimum wage is to punish employers for making money. If the employer does not benefit, it is called a "non-profit" or "government" or "school", and they can pay their employees nothing -- or even charge their employees. But if the employer benefits, then he is penalized be being forced to pay a "minimum wage".

The minimum wage = punishing the productive.

Was 9/11 an Act of Terrorism?

2007-02-22T14:22:00.000-08:00

No, it was not.

Terror is used to frighten a population in submitting to one's demands, and has been used in varying degrees of success; e.g., the imposition of socialism in the Soviet Union, the IRA demands for a united Ireland, etc.

Although we read much about what the 9/11 "terrorists" want, this has been all speculation. In fact, the only demands have been the ever-changing items presented in the occasional Osama Bin Laden videos, all of which are beyond contemplation, let alone implementation. And other "terrorist" attacks (such as Bali, Madrid, London, Tel Aviv, etc.) had no accompanying demands at all.

The supporters of these attacks, however, have clearly stated that they wished to murder people. They have not expressed any desire to "terrorize"; they have only expressed a desire to kill.

In short, 9/11 and associated acts are not terror, but are just plain mass murder as an end in itself.